Preamble

The House met at half-past
Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

RYDE CORPORATION BILL

SOUTHAMPTON CORPORATION BILL

Lords Amendments considered and agreed to.

MEDWAY PORTS AUTHORITY BILL [Lords]

RHONDDA CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

[Queen's Consent, on behalf of the Crown, signified]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

SALFORD CORPORATION BILL [Lords]

CITY OF LONDON (VARIOUS POWERS) Bill [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

QUEEN MARY COLLEGE BILL [Lords]

Read the Third time and passed, without amendment.

ABERDEEN CORPORATION ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

DUNDEE CORPORATION (BROKERS, ETC.) ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

NATIONAL TRUST FOR SCOTLAND ORDER CONFIRMATION BILL

Considered; to be read the Third time tomorrow.

Oral Answers to Questions — SOCIAL SERVICES

Elderly Persons' Benefits

Mr. Sydney Chapman: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the administration and publicity designed to ensure that elderly persons entitled to benefits receive them.

Mr. Duffy: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he is satisfied with the distribution and display of posters and leaflets concerning health and welfare benefits, especially as they affect senior citizens.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Paul Dean): I am satisfied that the staff administering old people's benefits are doing a good job in coping with the demands made upon them. The Department's extensive publicity programme is under constant review, and, in particular, the unique task of distributing 120 million leaflets a year. Steps are being taken to improve this.

Mr. Chapman: I appreciate what has been done, but does my hon. Friend recognise that many people who need help are not receiving the benefits which are their right? Will he seriously consider the possibility of ensuring that every dwelling unit in every road, street and lane throughout the land is visited by people offering voluntarily to do so? I am thinking of people such as housewives and students who would consider such visiting a labour of love. These people could ensure that where advertisements miss out the personal contact will succeed.

Mr. Dean: I thank my hon. Friend for the valuable suggestion he has made. I am sure that voluntary effort is doing much and can do more to ensure that those who are entitled to benefits receive them. I hesitate to take on lock, stock and barrel the very large task which my hon. Friend suggests. I suspect that a great deal of the effort would be spent on families which do not really need a visit.

Mr. Duffy: Is the Minister aware that a persistent source of information and authority, as they see it, cited by old


people querying benefits and entitlement is other old people and not the Department and its many agencies? How is he to overcome this communications gap? Will he concentrate many of the leaflets issued by his Department at places where old people congregate?

Mr. Dean: We are constantly trying to improve our arrangements for the supply of leaflets in places such as post offices and social security offices. We are also co-operating much more closely with local authorities and social service departments to try to ensure that the visits which are made by the social service departments are effectively co-ordinated.

Mr. O'Malley: How can the Minister be satisfied with the present situation when the most recent available survey estimates that over half a million retirement pensioners due to receive supplementary benefit are not receiving it and when the take-up of other means-tested benefits is often very low? Is not the best way of dealing with this difficult problem to provide retirement pensions which are big enough for all citizens to live on without the need for means testing?

Mr. Dean: The hon. Gentleman knows very well that we improved substantially the retirement pension so that those on supplementary benefit would not need it. Those most in need would gain no benefit from the vast additional expense which the hon. Gentleman's last point would involve. I hope he is not saying that the Opposition are in favour of that.

Children in Care (Homeless Families)

Mr. Judd: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will make a statement on the Government's policy towards children in care as the result of homelessness.

The Under-Secretary of State for Health and Social Security (Mr. Michael Alison): The Government's view is that families should not be split up and the children taken into care solely because of homelessness. Where, exceptionally, children have to be taken into care, the aim should be to reunite the family as soon as possible.

Mr. Judd: I accept that the Minister is a compassionate man. Does he not agree that in Britain in the 1970s it is a very grave reflection on our standards that any family should be faced with the agony of separation simply because of inadequate housing? Does he not agree that, even from the figures he recently gave me, there are far too many families—indeed, many hundreds—in precisely that predicament throughout the country? Cannot drastic action be taken by Government co-ordination to overcome this problem?

Mr. Alison: It is literally a catastrophe whenever a family has to be split up in this way, but the hon. Gentleman knows that some very difficult individual cases are involved. The local authorities, whether through their housing or their social services committees, have powers to keep a family together and housing facilities at their disposal. They endeavour to do so as frequently as possible. I am happy to say that the number of families still split up is falling, although it is still very much too high.

Mr. Clinton Davis: While the hon. Gentleman rightly describes the situation as a catastrophe when a family has to be split up, is he not aware that this is a growing problem, particularly in the inner London area, including my constituency of Hackney? What special aid is he proposing to give to the inner London areas particularly hit by this problem?

Mr. Alison: I cannot be specific about the hon. Gentleman's constituency without notice, but the figures generally show a downward trend in the number of families split up in this way. The Greve Report and subsequent reports went carefully into the problem and made a number of recommendations which we have sought to implement, and we passed on the consequential advice to the London boroughs concerned. There are, nevertheless, some intractable factors and no Government have been able fully and finally to dispose of them.

Cigarettes

Sir G. Nabarro: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services, in view of the rise in cigarette consumption by 6½ per cent. during 1972, if he will now take steps additional to the publication of tar


and nicotine content to dissuade cigarette smokers, notably young smokers, from developing the habit, including seeking to include health warnings on duty-free supplies at airports and on ships; and whether he will make a statement on all anti-cigarette propaganda.

The Secretary of State for Social Services (Sir Keith Joseph): I would refer my hon. Friend to my reply to him on 19th June about additional steps against cigarette smoking. The Health Education Council is particularly concerned about young people in planning its antismoking campaigns. Duty-free cigarettes packaged for export do not carry the warning notice and it is not possible to identify at the packaging stage the small proportion sold at airports and on ships.

Sir G. Nabarro: Has not my right hon. Friend recognised from my hostile supplementary questions that I dismiss absolutely the excuses he has given for continued delay in trying to prevent the inordinate rise in cigarette smoking, now estimated at 6 per cent. last year? Until he resorts to legislation there will surely be no cure. Will he not now relent before the onset of the new Session and introduce legislation at an early date?

Sir K. Joseph: The difference between my hon. Friend and the Government has been that he believed it was necessary to have legislation in order to have health warnings on cigarette packets, while the Government thought that we could rely upon voluntary agreement with the industry. I believe that the Government have been proved right. If my hon. Friend has suggestions for different forms of legislation, no doubt he will let me know.

Dr. Summerskill: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a conflicting and paradoxical situation with regard to advertising? On the one hand cigarette advertisements are banned on television and the Government contribute hundreds of thousands of pounds a year to deterring people from smoking because of the harmful and lethal effects, while on the other hand the tobacco industry is free to advertise the pleasure and gratification of smoking in newspapers and magazines and on hoardings?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, but it would be a grave step for this House to ban the

advertising of a product that it is perfectly legal to make, and the Government are not persuaded that to ban advertising would reduce the amount of cigarette smoking.

Hospital Staff (Stoke-on-Trent)

Mr. Golding: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will establish a committee of inquiry into the causes and consequences of the staff shortages at the City General Hospital, Stoke-on-Trent.

Mr. Alison: No, Sir. The staffing situation at the City General Hospital reflects the position throughout the National Health Service in that there is a general shortage of trained staff. The Birmingham Regional Hospital Board is well aware of the problem and has always accepted that a high priority should be given to recruitment and training of staff.

Mr. Golding: Is it not a shocking admission from the Government that the shortage of nurses is a national problem? Is the hon. Gentleman aware that in this case a shortage of seven nurses has meant that an operating theatre has been only half used, despite a massive waiting list for surgery? Is he further aware that the number of beds offered in North Staffordshire is fewer now than it was in 1970? Is he also aware that I have received representations that the recruitment of nurses in North Staffordshire is very inefficient and ineffective, given that there are many married women who would like to return to nursing if the conditions were made appropriate for them?

Mr. Alison: We have not got enough nurses, although the number now is higher than it was 12 months ago, having gone up nationally by as much as 7i per cent. to a higher level than ever, and in the Birmingham region by 8 per cent. I assure the hon. Gentleman that we are not complacent about the situation. If his allegation that mature nurses are not effectively being reached through advertising is correct, I will look into that aspect.

Health Visitors (Huntingdonshire)

Sir D. Renton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is aware of the shortage of health visitors


in Huntingdonshire; and what steps are being taken to overcome this shortage.

Mr. Alison: I am aware of a temporary shortage. The county council is expected to cover this deficiency by September.

Sir D. Renton: While thanking my hon. Friend for that partially satisfactory reply, I ask him whether he is aware that in rural areas doctors can give treatment to far more patients with the help of health visitors than without them. What is the cause of the shortage which has persisted for most of this year? What specifically does my hon. Friend hope to do to overcome it?

Mr. Alison: There is a national shortage of practically every kind of professional women worker. I take fully the point made by my right hon. and learned Friend that the effectiveness of local doctors is immeasurably extended if they can work as part of a team, and this is part of the purpose of the National Health Service reorganisation. We have found that recruitment campaigns in the past have had the effect of substantially increasing the numbers coming forward and we shall be pressing on with this method very much in the future.

Hospital Visiting Expenses

Mr. Sutcliffe: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether the Supplementary Benefits Commission has agreed to his request to review its criteria for increasing benefit where a family's income is insufficient to cover the expenses of visiting a dependent child in hospital.

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, Sir. The commission has not yet completed its review but expects to do so shortly.

Mr. Sutcliffe: In conjunction with my right hon. Friend's circular in May to encourage better hospital liaison with voluntary organisations, does not this go a long way to meet the representations made to my right hon. Friend by the National Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital?

Six K. Joseph: We shall have to see how far the commission feels it possible to go. I know that it is studying in great detail the report from the National

Association for the Welfare of Children in Hospital.

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: Will the right hon. Gentleman ask the Supplementary Benefits Commission to extend its review to cases of wives visiting their husbands who are in prison, very often hundreds of miles away?

Sir K. Joseph: That is a different question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to put it down, I will give an answer.

Retirement Pensions

Mr. Ashton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the current retirement pension as a percentage of the national average wage and the equivalent percentage in June 1970.

Mr. Dean: The standard rates of pension as a percentage of the estimated net average earnings of male manual workers—with which comparison can most appropriately be made—were 26 per cent. and 24·7 per cent. in June 1970 and April 1973 respectively for a single person, and 39·8 per cent. and 38·4 per cent. for a married couple.

Mr. Ashton: Does not that answer show that pensioners have fallen behind other members of the community? In view of that, will the Government stop boasting that they have done more for pensioners than anybody else has ever done and at least increase the pension by £1 plus 4 per cent., which would be on a level with wage earners?

Mr. Dean: The Government do not intend to boast and never have done about their record in pensions, but the facts speak for themselves. The present Government have improved the pension in real terms more than the previous Government did.

Mr. Ridsdale: Why is it that on the Continent pensioners are able to receive much more as a percentage of national earnings? Is it because countries on the Continent have not had the big increase in the number of pensioners that we have had—2 million over the last 10 years—or is it because their gross national product is much higher?

Mr. Dean: What my hon. Friend says is correct in Holland, which has a smaller


proportion of pensioners in the population than we have. But it is very difficult to get comparative figures. One has to take into account not only the level of pensions but the more comprehensive range of cover which we have for wives and dependants, and also the fact that we have the National Health Service, which, broadly speaking, is free at the point of use.

Mr. O'Malley: Will the hon. Gentleman confirm that the single person's pension as a percentage of national average earnings is substantially lower today than it was six years ago in 1967?

Mr. Dean: It has altered very little in relation to average earnings over the years but the proportion of pensioners in the community has continued to rise. What matters to pensioners is what the pension will buy, and it will buy more now than when the hon. Gentleman was responsible for these matters.

Sir B. Rhys Williams: Will my hon. Friend confirm that in Continental countries where pensions are higher than in this country the contributions are also higher? Will he make it plain that higher pensions in this country also mean higher contributions?

Mr. Dean: My hon. Friend is absolutely right. It is true that both employer and employee in most European countries pay substantially more towards the pension than is the case in this country.

Mr. O'Malley: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer my question? Is it or is it not true that during 1967 the single pension represented 21 per cent. of national earnings and that it is 3 per cent. below that level today?

Mr. Dean: The Labour Party really has to realise—

Mr. Heifer: Answer the question.

Mr. Dean: —that it is no good egging on greedy wage claims and then weeping crocodile tears for pensioners.

Mr. Marks: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what is the present real value of the basic national insurance pension of £6·75 compared with the date of the last increase; and if he will arrange for another additional

payment to compensate for this particularly in view of the latest price increases.

Mr. Dean: £6·40 at May 1973. The Government are confident that the substantial increase in pensions which will come into operation this October will more than compensate for the rise in prices.

Mr. Marks: Is the drop in the value of the pension more or less than the Government anticipated when they made the review in the spring of 1972? If the Minister cannot bring forward the date of the increase, will he not at least during the next 10 weeks make a bonus payment on the lines of the much-welcomed Christmas payment made last year?

Mr. Dean: But the hon. Gentleman knows that there is now an annual review of pensions which gives pensioners the assurance, which they have never had previously, that before the onset of each winter the pension will be increased by at least enough to compensate for rising prices. We are confident that this year it will do more than that.

Mr. Pardoe: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that what matters is the relation. ship between pensions and average industrial earnings? Will he confirm that under both Conservative and Labour Governments the pension has declined as a proportion of average industrial earnings? When will the Government accept the target that in a civilised society pensions cannot and must not be less than half average industrial earnings?

Mr. Dean: The proportion has not altered substantially. What has altered is the proportion of pensioners in the population. This has meant a substantial shift of resources, quite rightly, from the working population to the retired population.

Family Planning Act Circular

Mr. Palmer: asked the Secretary or State for Social Services if Circular 36/71 issued by his Department stating that the Family Planning Act draws no distinction in the giving of contraceptive advice between the married and the unmarried has been supplied to transport undertakings accepting public display advertisements from approved clinics.

Sir K. Joseph: Transport undertakings do not feature on my Department's distribution list for circulars such as the one mentioned by the hon. Member, which was sent to county councils and county boroughs in England, to London boroughs, the Common Council of the City of London and the Greater London Council.

Mr. Palmer: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that in Bristol British Transport Advertising will not accept advertisements from Brook Advisory Centres, a highly reputable body, specifying contraceptive advice to the unmarried? Have there not been similar experiences in Birmingham and London? Will the right hon. Gentleman send a copy of his circular to this nationalised organisation drawing attention to the Government's policy of non-discrimination?

Sir K. Joseph: Advertising on public transport is a matter for the discretion of the undertaking involved. I expect that those concerned will read this exchange.

Mrs. Renée Short: Will the right hon. Gentleman consider contacting the transport authorities and in doing so will he be sure not to miss out the West Midlands authority, which has also refused to display advertisements about family planning clinics or services? Is he aware that it has a weird idea that this would offend the general public, which is surely nonsense? Will he do what he can to see that everyone has the advice which he has to give them?

Sir K. Joseph: No. I produce almost a surfeit of advice to those responsible for carrying out public policy and I must leave the responsibility here to those concerned.

Vitamins A and D

Mrs. Joyce Butler: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what action he intends to take following the recommendations of the Medicines Commission in regard to products containing vitamin A and vitamin D; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. McCrindle: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he will take immediate steps to limit the sale

of aspirins as recommended by the Medicines Commission.

Sir K. Joseph: A decision will be taken when the views of the interested organisations which are being consulted in accordance with the requirements of the Medicines Act 1968 have been received and considered.

Mrs. Butler: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that many nutritionists advocate large amounts of vitamin D, as much as 1,000 international units, for people over 65 to prevent osteo-porosis, which causes one-third of the cases of head of the femur fractures, which are so crippling to old people? Will he ensure that any action he takes does not discourage old people from taking beneficial amounts of this vitamin and does not prevent them from buying it on general sale?

Sir K. Joseph: I am grateful to the hon. Lady for her comments which I will certainly bear in mind. She will realise that there are highly qualified people advising me. I will draw what she says to their attention.

Speech Therapists

Mr. R. C. Mitchell: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to recruit and train more speech therapists.

Mr. Alison: Recruitment is a matter for individual employing authorities who are aware of the need for more staff. Training was the subject of recommendations in the Quirk Report which we are still considering.

Mr. Mitchell: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the present acute shortage of speech therapists is causing great anguish to the parents of many children who need speech therapy? Is he further aware that there is little chance of obtaining a greater supply of speech therapists until the salary scales are radically reviewed upward?

Mr. Alison: I am well aware of the shortage of speech therapists. Professor Quirk drew attention, and the hon. Gentleman will no doubt recall it, to the extraordinary figure of wastage in this profession which I am unable to believe would be radically altered by sensational increases in salaries.

Dr. Stuttaford: Would not my hon. Friend agree that the answer to this Question and to Questions Nos. 5 and 6 is one and the same, namely, that we cannot expect girls leaving school to go into a job which will pay them only one-half or one-third as much as they would get as typists? If we are to have a National Health Service with the best type of girl, capable of earning a reasonable salary, she must he able to get that reasonable salary from the NHS.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend must recall that the real problem is not that we fail to attract young girls into the service. We do not. It is that they leave the service to get married very soon after they have joined.

Dr. Summerskiil: Since there are only men speech therapists practising in the whole of the United Kingdom, may 1 ask what steps the hon. Gentleman is taking to project speech therapy as a rewarding and attractive career for men—or does he regard it as a woman's job since the rates of pay are low, the prospects of promotion few and there is inadequate professional status and poor working conditions?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Lady has given a quick thumb-nail sketch of some of the deficiencies to which the Quirk Committee drew attention. As she knows, we are considering the Quirk recommendations and I hope that we will achieve the long-range projections of recruitment and maintenance of staff in post which Professor Quirk set out.

Dame Irene Ward: Will my hon. Friend bear in mind that all the professions in the supplementary-to medicine group are underpaid? May we hear from the Secretary of State how he is getting on in his talks with the Treasury? This is important.

Mr. Alison: My hon. Friend, whose experience in this area is unexcelled in the House, will know that the Whitley Council machinery which determines the pay of this group of workers is an independent voluntary organisation over which we have no direct influence or control.

Mr. William Hamilton: Will the hon. Gentleman now answer the question which I asked him when we debated the

Quirk Report and which he did not then answer, namely, whether the pay increase which is to be given to these young girls, back-dated to April, will have to conform to phase 2 of the prices and incomes policy—that is, £1 plus 4 per cent.—or whether it will be an exceptional case? It ought to be the latter. If it is not, it will be a national scandal.

MT. Alison: I cannot answer the hon. Gentleman's question because it is not within my power to do so. Obviously, any pay proposal falls within whatever is the current phase of the prices and incomes policy.

Disabled Children (Grants)

Mr. Greville Janner: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many applications have been received for grants from the Government's £3 million fund in respect of congenitally disabled children; how many and what percentage of such applications have been successful; and how much of the said sum remains available.

Sir K. Joseph: I am informed that up to 6th July the Rowntree Trust had received 877 applications and had made 161 payments. Only about 2 per cent. of applications have been refused. Payments totalling £16,420 have so far been made,

Mr. Janner: Does not the right hon. Gentleman agree that those figures show that out of the vast number of disabled people very few understand or know of the existence of these grants or apply for them? Will he take steps to make these grants known and to extend their availability to people who became disabled after birth?

Sir K. Joseph: The answer to the second part of the question is "No". The answer to the first part is "Yes". I will be writing again to local authorities soon. From 1st August grants will be available for children under the age of 10 and we must expect, as more and more people become aware of the Rowntree Fund possibilities, that the rate of applications will increase sharply.

Mr. Astor: Is my right hon. Friend in a position to make a judgment about the amount of money which will eventually be needed to meet the demand? Can he indicate whether the Government will


commit further funds when the first £3 million has been allocated?

Sir K. Joseph: It is too early to make a judgment about my hon. Friend's first question.

Mr. Alfred Morris: How can we judge the adequacy of the fund without knowing how many children are eligible for benefit? The Secretary of State suggested that there would be an increase in the amount of the fund. Will he make a statement on this matter at the earliest possible date?

Sir K. Joseph: It is not possible to estimate how many children might be helped by the fund because the circumstances of each family and the possibility or availability of help from public bodies varies in each case. But we are sure that the rate of applications will increase.

Disabled Persons' Aids

Mr. Carter-Jones: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will review the procedure whereby information regarding aids for the disabled can be made more readily known to the medical profession and social services departments; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend is already reviewing this question, and he will make his conclusions known in due course.

Mr. Carter-Jones: I thank the hon. Gentleman for his answer. Will he make sure that next year his Department is represented at the Naidex exhibition organised by the Central Council at Brighton so that people may be aware of what is available? Secondly, will he make sure that the excellent work of the Disabled Living Foundation is spread to the provinces so that they may see, on a permanent basis, what is available? Thirdly, will he consider the recommendation contained in "Care with Dignity" issued by the National Fund for Research into Crippling Diseases that many exhibitions should be held in places like libraries, stores and department stores so that the public and the disabled may become aware of the problems and of what is available to overcome them?

Mr. Alison: I will consider the hon. Gentleman's first and third questions. On

his second question, I think he knows that we already make an annual grant towards the cost of the information service provided by the Disabled Living Foundation, and I believe that this helps in the difficult task of reaching the many local authorities which might have an interest in the information available.

Dr. Vaughan: Does my hon. Friend agree that bodies such as the Rowntree Trust and others which have funds available should give much more information on the basis on which they can supply money and the numbers of cases coming to them?

Mr. Alison: Lacking advance notice of that question, I would not want entirely to subscribe to what my hon. Friend has said. But I corroborate and underline the fact that we cannot make too much information available to the public about the crucial services which exist.

Mental Patients (Security)

Mrs. Knight: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services if he will investigate the efficiency of security arrangements for mental patients who might constitute a danger to the public if not kept under restraint.

Sir K. Joseph: A working party of officials was set up in 1971 to consider security arrangements in National Health Service psychiatric hospitals. Its report has just been made and I shall shortly be circulating it to regional hospital boards as a discussion document.

Mrs. Knight: Will my right hon. Friend note that some of us will await with great keenness his words on the report and the report itself? Is he aware that a man who was recently found guilty, not once but several times, of rape was sent to a mental hospital in Birmingham. escaped and raped other young girls? Will he consider the possibility of either stopping the open-door policy in mental homes, which some of us would regret, or not sending people guilty of rape and other violent crimes to places where they can simply walk out of the open door?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend has identified a dilemma, because the open-door policy is, on the whole, producing great benefit to the public. Nevertheless, there are problems of identifying those


who are potentially dangerous and of providing suitable accommodation for them. The discussion document which I will send out puts on record the factors which must be weighed, and I hope that decisions can be made fairly soon.

Mr. Spearing: I recognise the need for extreme security at such institutions as Broadmoor and Rampton and the desirability of the open-door policy, but does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a prima facie case for the creation of an intermediate type of institution which would relieve the staff at institutions of the open-door type and relieve overcrowding in others?

Sir K. Joseph: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman is on the right lines. It might be that in each region there should be some wards which are suitable for patients who are not necessarily so dangerous that they should go to places like Broadmoor but too difficult to handle in the normal pyschiatric hospital.

Unemployment Benefit (Earnings-Related Supplement)

Mr. Peter Archer: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services how many people received earnings-related unemployment benefit in the last convenient period for which figures are available.

Mr. Dean: The latest available details are taken from a sample analysis of the unemployed made on 6th November 1972. On that day 124,000 claimants were receiving earnings-related supplement to unemployment benefit.

Mr. Archer: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the value of the benefit is diminished by the requirement of a further 12 waiting days over and above the original six? Does he further agree that many people who would be helped by earnings-related benefit do not accumulate 18 waiting days in any period of 13 weeks?

Mr. Dean: I understand the hon. and learned Gentleman's point. On the other hand, I think he will accept that the payments for that period were made only retrospectively and, therefore, were of no help to those in immediate need. They are still covered by the supplementary benefit arrangements.

Industrial Disputes (Benefit)

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what estimate he has made of the cost to date of supplementary benefit payments made to those involved in industrial disputes resulting from wage claims incompatible with prices and incomes legislation, and their dependants; and if he will make a statement regarding the progress of his review of supplementary benefits in industrial disputes.

Sir K. Joseph: About £35,000. On the review I have nothing to add to my reply to my hon. Friend on 6th March.—[Vol. 852, c. 213–15.]

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: I appreciate that the first part of the Question invited a subjective judgment and therefore was, not surprisingly, given a subjective answer. Nevertheless, does not my right hon. Friend agree that it is the height of illogicality to encourage employers to believe that it would be against the law for them to concede wage increases beyond a certain level and then to subsidise their employees to fight settlements beyond that level? On the second part of the Question, can my right hon. Friend say how long the civil servants on the inquiry must serve before they qualify for pension?

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend is perfectly entitled to criticise Ministers for delay in reaching final decisions, but he is not entitled to criticise civil servants,

Mr. Bruce-Gardyne: Why not?

Sir K. Joseph: Because it is the Minister's job and not that of civil servants to take decisions.
On the first part of my hon. Friend's supplementary question, the Government still accept the responsibility, unless the policy be changed, for ensuring that wives and children do not suffer.

Mr. Heifer: Does not the right hon. Gentleman consider that the Government have been very lucky to have had so few workers involved in industrial struggle against the prices and incomes policy? Would it not be better if his hon. Friends were prepared to campaign against the type of labour known as "lump labour" whereby workers do not pay their taxes


and millions of pounds are lost to the country? Would it not be a good idea if the Government applied their mind to dealing with that matter?

Sir K. Joseph: I do not accept that the Government depended on luck for the diminution in industrial conflict that has occurred recently. What has happened has been due to the general acceptance by the public and by most members of trade unions that the Government's efforts during phase 1 and phase 2 have been well-intentioned and broadly fair.

Manchester Royal Infirmary

Mr. Hatton: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when work is expected to commence on the new hospital to replace the Manchester Royal Infirmary.

Mr. Alison: A new works department. costing £196,900, is already under construction and work is expected to start on other ancillary buildings within the next two years. Planning of the main hospital is well advanced, but it is as yet too soon to say precisely when building will start.

Mr. Hatton: Does the hon. Gentleman appreciate the inconvenience that the citizens of Manchester have to suffer from the continued delay in starting this new hospital, and that each month that passes by adds considerably to the already escalating costs of the building?

Mr. Alison: The hon. Gentleman knows that we are here thinking about a hospital project which will cost £36 million when it is completed. I am sure that he and his constituents can take heart from the fact that we are committed to it by these substantial early stages of which I have given him details today.

Miss Holt: When my hon. Friend is considering expenditure upon the Manchester Royal Infirmary will he also consider the urgent need for a new Royal Infirmary in Preston? The people of Preston will not be prepared to wait much longer for the new infirmary which they need so badly.

Mr. Alison: I note carefully my hon. Friend's important supplementary question—so important that my right

hon. Friend is presently to receive a deputation precisely on this issue.

Family Planning

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services what steps he is taking to recruit suitably trained doctors to carry out the expanded domiciliary family planning service.

Sir K. Joseph: As to training, I am considering, in conjunction with the various professions concerned, the question of what further needs for training in family planning there may be for all the staff who will be involved in the expanded service. Extra financial provision has been made for training in family planning, and the provision of adequate facilities is high on my list of priorities.
Recruitment of staff, suitably trained, is a matter of local selection.

Mrs. Short: I thank the right hon. Gentleman for that comprehensive reply. May I remind him that a large number of practising general practitioners have had no training in birth-control techniques and that the need for in-service training is urgent? Will he see that this is carried out with the least possible delay?

Sir K. Joseph: Medical education is not for me but I am sure that those concerned will have noted the hon. Lady's remarks.

Dr. Stuttaford: Does my right hon. Friend agree that this is an essential part of good family practice and that there will always be a weakness in good family practitioners until the family practitioner service is selected on merit and vocation instead of on academic ability? As long as we recruit doctors entirely on academic ability, there will be weaknesses in the family practitioner service.

Sir K. Joseph: My hon. Friend should know that the person holding my office has no control whatsoever over medical education. I hope that he will write to those concerned giving his views.

Community Health Councils

Mr. Mayhew: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services when he will invite nominations for membership of


community health councils; when these councils will start operating; and when regional and area health authorities will start operating.

Sir K. Joseph: It is my intention that regional health authorities should exercise the function of establishing community health councils. The aim will be to bring the councils into operation in April 1974. I hope that the regional and area authorities will be able to hold their first meetings towards the end of August and the end of September, respectively, in order to prepare for taking over operational responsibility for the health service on 1st April 1974.

Mr. Mayhew: May we have an assurance that no decisions can be taken by regional or area authorities until the community health councils are fully operational?

Sir K. Joseph: Regional and area health authorities will have no operational authority for running the service as a whole until 1st April 1974, by which date I hope that the community health councils will be in existence.

Dr. Summerskill: In view of the highly undesirable emphasis on ministerial appointments in the composition of the health authorities, will the right hon. Gentleman treat the community health councils with the greatest respect and urgency, as they will inject an element of democracy which is so far lacking in the reorganised health service?

Sir K. Joseph: Yes, certainly.

Hospital Expenditure (Birmingham)

Mr. William Price: asked the Secretary of State for Social Services whether he is satisfied with the level of proposed capital expenditure in the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board area during the late 1970s.

Mr. Alison: My right hon. Friend is not satisfied, because the resources available will not be enough to do everything that should be done. But the region will have a fair share of what is available for the country as a whole, and my right hon. Friend is keeping its allocation under continuing review.

Mr. Price: Is it not clear that, because of the disastrous drop in Government expenditure after the mid-1970s, many

major hospital programmes in the Midlands will be delayed for some years? Why has the Minister selected the Birmingham Regional Hospital Board as the prime target for cuts which will produce a severe hospital crisis in the region within 10 years?

Mr. Alison: In the three years since the Government came to power Birmingham Regional Hospital Board has succeeded in acquiring a record real increase in the capital resources available for hospitals. The hon. Gentleman will recall that we are just about to start a scheme worth £225,000 in Rugby for the St. Cross Hospital.

Mr. Price: On a point of order. Mr. Speaker. In view of the totally unsatisfactory nature of that answer, I beg to give notice that I shall seek leave to obtain my fourth Adjournment debate on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — FOOD SUPPLIES

Mr. Stonehouse: asked the Prime Minister if he is satisfied with the coordination between the Department of Trade and Industry and the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food on the regulation and control of food imports and prices and the implementation of Commonwealth food programmes.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): Yes, Sir.

Mr. Stonehouse: In view of the unprecedented rise in the cost of food during the past 12 months, which is made worse by the Price Commission's announcement yesterday of further rises caused partly by the creeping devaluation of the pound, will the Prime Minister take action on the Commonwealth front to ensure an increase in the production of grains and proteins, of which there is a world shortage, and will he perhaps raise this matter at the Commonwealth Prime Ministers' Conference? Secondly, what does the Prime Minister intend to do to honour the pledge which he made to allow sugar producers in the Commonwealth to export their sugar to the EEC in view of the serious statement made yesterday by the French Minister of Agriculture?

The Prime Minister: The Commonwealth producers are free to increase their cereal production as much as they wish.


and they know perfectly well that, in the present condition of world markets, whatever they can produce will be required. No instructions or discussion in the Commonwealth Heads of Government Conference are needed to deal with that. The Commission has put forward its proposals on sugar which will meet the case, and we have no doubt that we shall achieve our objectives.

Mr. Jay: After yesterday's extraordinary speech by the French Minister of Agriculture on sugar, does the Prime Minister still regard as reliable the safeguards for the Commonwealth sugar producers in the Treaty of Accession?

The Prime Minister: Yes, Sir. I am not responsible for the speech of the French Minister of Agriculture.

Oral Answers to Questions — CANCER RESEARCH

Mr. Dormand: asked the Prime Minister whether he will make a statement on the comments which he invited from the joint Cancer Research Campaign, the Medical Research Council and the Imperial Cancer Research Fund Coordinating Committee for Cancer Research, following the publication of Lord Zuckerman's report on cancer research.

The Prime Minister: I have received comments from the Co-ordinating Committee for Cancer Research which coordinates the activities in this field of the Medical Research Council, the Imperial Cancer Research Fund and the Cancer Research Campaign. Some of the committee's proposals, as the committee noted, are already being budgeted for by voluntary bodies. For the rest, my right hon. Friends the Secretaries of State for Education and Science, Social Services and Scotland are making a comprehensive examination of the committee's suggestions in the light of the resources available.

Mr. Dormand: Do not the comments of those bodies show the deepest concern about the future of cancer research? The Prime Minister has made promises, including a pledge to the President of the United States, but will not any increase in the funds available for cancer research be at the expense of much-needed research in other fields in accordance with

the Zuckerman Report? In view of the false hopes which the Prime Minister has raised and of the increasing number of deaths from cancer, will he make a personal, clear and unequivocal statement at the earliest possible date?

The Prime Minister: In reply to the last part of that supplementary question, it will not be possible for me to make a statement before the House rises, but I hope to do so in the autumn. One of the main points which was made by the bodies I mentioned is that any increase in expenditure on cancer research should not be at the expense of other forms of medical activity. When Lord Zuckerman made his report to me, one of the main points he emphasised was that what was required was not a sudden surge of expenditure because it would not be possible to use it productively. What he wanted was a steady increase in expenditure, and we have increased it over the past year from £2½ million to about £3 million.

Mr. Pavitt: Is it not surprising that after a period of 10 years, during which Minister after Minister in both Labour and Conservative Governments have told me from the Dispatch Box that there has been no shortage of funds for medical research into cancer, there should still be a shortage of funds for research into rheumatism and arthritis? Is it not disturbing that the Zuckerman Report and the co-ordinating committee have said that there is urgent need for all sectors, including the career structure in this area of research, to be given help? Therefore, will the Prime Minister call for an immediate meeting between the Ministers responsible and the Departments concerned so that we do not have to wait too long for something to happen?

The Prime Minister: I asked Lord Zuckerman to make his report to me personally. If I had not taken that initiative the recommendation would not have been made, nor would the comment of various other bodies. I have said that my right hon. Friends are working on this matter. The various bodies which we have consulted have indicated the specific projects which they believe will be covered entirely by their voluntary funds; others will be covered in part by voluntary funds, and there are those on


which they would like Government assistance. My right hon. Friends are now working speedily on this matter.

Oral Answers to Questions — WORKS COUNCILS

Mr. David Steel: asked the Prime Minister what consultations he has had with representatives of the trade union movement and the CBI on the question of works council legislation.

The Prime Minister: The TUC has put forward its views on works councils in its document "Industrial Democracy" and these are being studied. The CBI's views will also receive careful consideration. My right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment intends to have the widest consultations with both sides of industry when the Government's Green Paper is published in the autumn.

Mr. Steel: Is the Prime Minister able to say any more about the precise timing of the publication of the Green Paper? Will he assure us that in the consultations carried out with the TUC and CBI. he will not allow their obviously entrenched interests to stand in the way of creating a genuine industrial democracy?

The Prime Minister: I cannot give a more specific date at this point for publication of the Green Paper, but the objective of publication is to allow public discussion of specific proposals. I do not think one needs necessarily to translate a system used in another country in that exact form to this country. The views of the CBI and TUC must receive full weight, but we shall take others into account.

Sir D. Walker-Smith: Will my right hon. Friend say whether the consultation has extended also to the question of employee or worker participation in supervisory boards in accordance with the proposals of the fifth directive and of the European company statute and, if so, with what effect?

The Prime Minister: The consultations certainly have covered this point. The TUC document deals with it very fully. I cannot give my right hon. and learned Friend the summary of all the views because they are still coming in.

Mr. Ewing: In view of the bitter experience which the Prime Minister and his Government have had with the trade union movement by seeking to impose on it the Industrial Relations Act, will he explain to the Liberal Party that nothing that is imposed can possibly be democratic and, therefore, that this suggestion will be rejected?

The Prime Minister: It is a very strange view that, if a democratically-elected Parliament passes legislation, that is not democratic. What is becoming clear is that by far the greater number of countries in Europe with free trade union movements have legislative arrangements for various forms of consultation; some have supervisory boards and a very large number have works councils.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRICES (PRIME MINISTER'S SPEECH)

Mr. Ashton: asked the Prime Minister whether he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on prices at Sidcup on 29th June.

Mrs. Renée Short: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on the reasons for food price increases at Sidcup on 29th June.

Mr. David Clark: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the House of Commons Library a copy of his public speech on food prices to his constituents at Sidcup on Friday 29th June.

Mr. William Hamilton: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech on food prices which he made in Sidcup on 29th June.

Mr. Kaufman: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of the public speech he delivered on prices at Sidcup on 29th June.

Mr. Carter: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on prices made at Sidcup on 29th June.

Mr. Molloy: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on prices made at Sidcup on Friday 29th June.

Mr. Norman Lamont: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech in Sidcup on the economy on Friday 29th June.

Mr. Skinner: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on 29th June at Sidcup on economic matters.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his public speech on food prices delivered at Sidcup on 29th June.

Mr. Meacher: asked the Prime Minister if he will place in the Library a copy of his speech at Sidcup on 29th June on food prices.

The Prime Minister: With permission, I will answer these Questions together. I did so on 2nd July, Sir.

Mr. Ashton: In that speech the Prime Minister trotted out the tired excuse that the increase in food prices is due to increases in the cost of raw materials from abroad. Will he turn up some of the recent issues of the Financial Times where he will see that the profits of Tesco, Sainsbury, Associated British Foods and such firms went up last year by as much as 30 per cent.? Will he also note from those reports that the profits of FMC, Britain's largest meat wholesaler, doubled last year? In view of the fact that the wages of trade union members are being kept down to 4 per cent., will he take action to freeze some of the profits being made by these firms and in that way keep down prices?

The Prime Minister: While the present Government have been in office the costs of raw materials and fuel used for food manufacture have risen by 44 per cent. In the six years of Labour Government the figure went up by 13 per cent., due to world factors entirely outside the control of the Labour Government. [Interruption.] Perhaps the Leader of the Opposition will go on cheering at that. So far as profits are concerned, these are under the control of the Price Commission. The regulations are clearly set out in the code. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will also recognise, as do the leaders of the TUC, that if there is to be public

investment in this country there must be a level of profit to sustain it.

Mr. Lamont: Is not the reason why retail food prices have risen much less than imported food prices contained in the quarterly report of the Price Commission? Does not that show that two-thirds of the applications have been refused, that increases granted have been much less than claimed, and that the rate of inflation in a period which has seen the biggest rise in commodity prices since the Korean War is much less than it would have been without the intervention of the Price Commission? Is it not clear from that report that the system is operating fairly and effectively and is compatible with a rate of growth that should be supported by the Opposition?

The Prime Minister: That is undoubtedly true. The figures given by the Price Commission in terms of the rejection of price increases show the control that is being exercised. So far as the manufactured foodstuffs are concerned, over the six months from the beginning of the standstill last November to May, the latest month for which the index is available, the price of manufactured foodstuffs in the shops and the index as a whole fell marginally by 0.2 per cent.

Mrs. Short: Does the Prime Minister recall in his speech in Sidcup making the extraordinary claim that he had "come clean" to the British people, and that when discussing entry into the Common Market he said there would be some gradual limited increases in some food prices, whereas in fact they have not been gradual or limited or in respect of only some food prices but have been right across the board? What does he intend to do about the situation?

The Prime Minister: If the hon. Lady reads the whole speech, she will see that I also gave the comparative figures taking world prices and the intervention price of the Community, which is the level to which we have to rise. If we take cereals, soft wheat which we have to buy for our bread is costing £30 a ton at the intervention price within the Community and £50 a ton in world markets. A similar situation exists in meat. Therefore, it is nonsense to say that this


is a result of our entry into the Community.

Sir Gilbert Longden: Will my right hon. Friend take the opportunity to point out how very much worse the situation would be without the Government's policy of prices and incomes and with the Labour Party's policy of no control over prices, more nationalisation and food subsidies without rationing?

The Prime Minister: Even more surprising is that the Labour Party would have had no arrangements in terms of wages but would have had a wages free-for-all which would boost inflation.

Mr. Clark: Does the Prime Minister recollect in his Sidcup speech bragging about how he had acted directly to bring down the price of sugar? Is he forgetting that in the few weeks before that speech he deliberately acted to take away the £15 per ton subsidy on sugar, thereby putting up the price of a 2–1b. bag of sugar by 1½p?

The Prime Minister: In that speech I was referring to what had happened in the previous year, in which we had acted not only on sugar but on potatoes and milk.

Mr. Gorst: Can my right hon. Friend say which of the solutions proposed by the Opposition for reducing or stabilising prices would be practicable and acceptable to the people?

The Prime Minister: I do not think any of them would be.

Mr. Hamilton: Why did not the Prime Minister refer in that speech to his promise in 1970 that he would reduce the rate of increase in prices "at a stroke" and say how far he thought he had implemented that promise? Why did he not dissociate himself from the remarks of his party officials when they met a group of irate housewives in the Midlands a few weeks ago and referred to them as "this bloody crowd" because they were calling the right hon. Gentleman the biggest Judas of the twentieth century—[An HON. MEMBER: "And worse"]—and worse, and some of his best friends are calling him that now—because of his deliberate deception of the housewife in 1970?

The Prime Minister: The reason was that, at the same time as the event of

which the hon. Gentleman is giving a very distorted impression, I was myself having a very enjoyable tour in my own constituency.

Sir Harmar Nicholls: Quite apart from the effect of world prices on the cost of food, is it not still true to say today that one man's wage increase is another man's price increase?

The Prime Minister: It is absolutely true, and I hope that the Leader of the Opposition remembers.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Speaker: Order. There is a debate to follow to which the Opposition attach great importance, and there is only a very limited time for it. Mr. Prior—Business Motion.

Mr. Skinner: What is going on?

Mr. Speaker: The Question is—

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I heard the Prime Minister say distinctly that he would answer a number of Questions, including Q20. For some reason or other, several of those Questions have not been dealt with. Notwithstanding the fact that there is, as you say, a very important debate to take place following Questions, will you bear in mind that all I want to say to the Prime Minister is—

Mr. Speaker: No. The hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) has raised a fair point of order. However, I am acting directly in accordance with the Report of the Select Committee on Parliamentary Questions which said that:
… it would improve the effectiveness of this period of Parliamentary business if Mr. Speaker made it clear that he would not necessarily call for a supplementary Question every Member who had placed an identical Question on the Order Paper.

Mr. Edwin Wainwright: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I put two matters to you? In the first place, my own Question was tabled at ten o'clock in the morning and has come out as No. Q25. Secondly, in your judgment, rightly or wrongly, you called Government back benchers who had not even tabled Questions.

Mr. Speaker: I have to try to keep a balance, and that is a proposition which


helps both sides of the House from time to time. I have to try to keep a balance. However, the luck of the draw is a different matter, and I do not think that it is a matter for me today. In any event, let us get on. Mr. Prior.

Mr. Healey: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. It is a well-known convention in the House that Front Bench spokesmen do not rise to put supplementary questions until those back-bench hon. Members who have put down Questions have been called. I was deliberately waiting, for that reason. Is it in order to gag the Opposition Front Bench on a matter of major national importance simply in subservience to the rule which you have quoted?

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. May we have some guarantee—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The right hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey) tempts me. If he would really like to ask a supplementary question, 1 shall allow him to do so.

Mr. Healey: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker, although I apologise to those of my hon. Friends who have been denied the right to ask supplementary questions to their own Questions—

Hon. Members: Sit down.

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is all coming out of the time of the Opposition for this short debate. I doubted whether I would shorten matters by allowing the right hon. Member for Leeds, East to ask a supplementary question, but I will allow him to do so.

Mr. Skinner: And some back benchers as well?

Mr. Healey: My supplementary question is this: in the light of the appalling rise in prices, which the Prime Minister has to admit has taken place, does he still maintain that he is prepared to carry out the promise made by the Chief Secretary in March, namely, in phase 3 of the incomes policy to allow real earnings to increase not significantly less than the increase in national production—in other words, 5 per cent.?

The Prime Minister: That is one of the major matters to be discussed with the TUC and the CBI.

Mr. Skinner: rose

Mr. Atkinson: rose

Mr. Speaker: Order. Mr. Prior.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Motion made, and Question proposed,

That, at this day's Sitting, Mr. Speaker shall put any Question necessary to dispose of Proceedings on a Motion for the Adjournment of the House moved by a Minister of the Crown not later than Seven o'clock.—[Mr. Prior.]

Mr. Skinner: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker—

Mr. Speaker: Later. I am putting the Question. When I have put the Question. I will take another point of order.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Speaker: Now, a point of order. Mr. Atkinson.

Mr. Atkinson: rose—

Mr. Skinner: How do you know that this is a point of order?

Mr. Atkinson: The ruling which you have just given, Mr. Speaker, in my view is a blatant erosion of back-bench rights. How can you say that you are keeping a balance when you demonstrate most clearly a prejudice in favour of a Front Bench spokesman to the exclusion of back-bench questioners? As I understand the position, you are the unprejudiced guardian of back-bench rights. If that is right, how on earth can we allow to pass an incident of this kind? You have called a Front Bench spokesman when a number of unanswered Questions remain on the Order Paper.

Mr. Skinner: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. You will recall that you declared that you were anxious to see that some sort of balance was maintained during Prime Minister's Questions. In view of the fact that most of the Questions concerned were tabled by Opposition hon. Members, surely you must appreciate, or you ought to


appreciate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—that if the Prime Minister is answering Questions, from whichever side of the House, then presumably the Government are getting a fair share of the balance, otherwise you are implying that the Prime Minister is not capable of answering the Questions.

Sir T. Beamish: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker, which arises out of previous points of order. Will you be good enough to say whether the Select Committee has given consideration to the growing practice whereby six or eight hon. Members put a Question to the Prime Minister asking him to place a copy of a speech in the Library of the House when it is already there, thus pre-empting Questions and preventing other hon. Members from asking my right hon. Friend Questions?

Mr. Speaker: I find this a very July-like discussion, especially with very limited time for the debate which is to follow.
With regard to the matter raised by the hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson), I was, of course, talking about the balance between the two sides of the House and not the balance between Front and back benches. I have some sympathy with what the hon. Gentleman said, and perhaps I acted against my better judgment in doing what I did. If what I did was wrong, then so be it. But I really try to preserve the balance between Front and back benches. In

this case, I thought it fair to allow one supplementary question to the Opposition Front Bench spokesman.
On the matter raised by the hon. Member for Bolsover (Mr. Skinner) I have no comment to make.
I hope that we can now get on to the debate.

Mr. Sheldon: While you are reconsidering your position on this matter, Mr. Speaker, will you also reconsider your position in respect of the asking of supplementary questions by hon. Gentlemen opposite who have not put down Questions? This was not the practice in the previous Parliament. You originated this new precedent. Will you reconsider it? There were 10 hon. Members on this side of the House who had put down Questions, only three of which were answered. No hon. Members opposite had put down a Question. Nevertheless, they had some supplementary questions answered. Will you reconsider this precedent which you initiated?

Mr. Speaker: I will reconsider it. However, I think that it is a good practice. Anyhow, the hon. Gentleman is wrong. An hon. Member on the Government side had put down a Question. Perhaps that matter can be considered by the Select Committee on Procedure. It is not an easy position for the Chair when there are 10 Questions down which appear to opt the time for later questioners.

RENT ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) (YOUNG MARRIEDS' HOMES AND RETIRED PERSONS' ANNUITIES) BILL

3.40 p.m.

Mr. T. L. Iremonger: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to make provision for retired persons to purchase annuities for themselves and their surviving spouses in respect of premises partly leased to lessees and partly occupied by themselves during their lifetimes.
The Rent Act 1968, which the Bill seeks to amend, provides in Section 10(1) that a court shall not make an order for a house owner to regain possession of part of his house let unfurnished except in certain cases when it may—though not must—order possession, and those cases are set out in Part I of Schedule 3.
Subsection (2) provides that the Court "shall"—that is to say, must—order possession in the cases set out in Part II of Schedule 3.
The Bill would add a new Case 14 to Schedule 3, which would come at the end of Part II, in the following terms:
Where notice is given to the occupier of part of a dwelling house by an individual house owner or the surviving spouse of such an individual who occupied the whole dwelling house as his residence and who is over 60 years of age or, alternatively, by a person
—which would include a company—
whose title to the property in which such part of a dwelling house is comprised derives from such an individual over 60 years of age, or from his surviving spouse, as part of a scheme approved by the Secretary of State.
The Bill would also contain a new clause to amend the Rent Act to give powers to the Secretary of State to make regulations approving schemes referred to in the new Case 14 in Part II of Schedule 3.
The kind of scheme envisaged is one under which an owner sells the freehold reversion of his property in exchange for an annuity or approved benefit while re-retaining for himself and his surviving spouse a life interest in the property.
The purpose of the Bill is to enable two sets of people to solve one another's problems. One such set is retired people who would be glad to convert part of their large freehold house into a self-contained flat and to let it unfurnished.
They would be glad to do this and thereby turn a sterile asset, which they do not need, into a supplementary income which they need desperately. They may also wish to sell their freehold reversion while retaining a life tenancy for the couple or the surviving spouse in exchange for an annuity. These people are not willing to convert and let part of their house unfurnished unless they can recover possession when and as they may wish. They cannot do that, as will have been clear from the explanation that I have given of Section 10, unless the Rent Act is amended as proposed. If the Rent Act were so amended, these householders would be glad to convert and to let to home-hunting people to whom I shall refer shortly.
This same set of people-the retired-may also wish to buy annuities on the basis of schemes of the kind to which I have referred. However, to do that it is imperative that their freehold should not be encumbered by a privileged tenancy which may subsist under the Rent Act for up to three successive generations of tenants.
In my constituency there are many streets of large houses occupied by one or two retired persons hard hit by decades of inflation who would take advantage of their asset in the shape of their house if they could be sure of being able to regain possession of the whole of it on demand. They would let unfurnished in those circumstances, but not otherwise.
The second set of people to benefit from the effects of the Bill would be young married couples who desperately need unfurnished flats as homes to rent. They do not want and do not need privileged tenancies under which the house-owner cannot give them notice. But without the Bill they have this unwanted and unnecessary privilege forced on them. They cannot waive it. So there is no home for them, though such homes are potentially available, in my constituency at any rate, in substantial numbers.
Failure to amend the Rent Acts in the way that I propose is like making able-bodied people hobble about on crutches. It is denying homes to thousands of young married constituents of mine who are able and willing to pay a substantial rent of up to £10 a week but are condemned to living with their in-laws or to moving far


away from Greater London. It is also denying to thousands of elderly people a much-needed benefit which would improve their standard of living and relieve them of much anxiety.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. T. L. Iremonger and Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman.

RENT ACT 1968 (AMENDMENT) (YOUNG MARRIEDS' HOMES AND RETIRED PERSONS' ANNUITIES)

Bill to make provision for retired persons to purchase annuities for themselves and their surviving spouses in respect of premises partly leased to lessees and partly occupied by themselves during their lifetimes, presented accordingly, and read the First time; to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 194.]

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Kenneth Clarke.]

PORTUGAL

3.48 p.m.

Mr. Harold Wilson: (Huyton): This debate on the Adjournment enables the House to deal with the issues raised in the Official Opposition motion tabled last Tuesday. Clearly the fact that the Portuguese dictator is now in London means that our repeated demand that the Government should cancel the invitation is already bypassed by events, but the fundamental issue remains, and the House cannot escape responsibility for deciding it tonight.
I must make one thing clear at the outset. The Labour Party's categorical objection to this visit was declared months ago. It was not a belated response to these latest revelations of Portuguese atrocities. It was a condemnation of the whole lifestyle of Portuguese Fascism at home and repressive colonialism abroad. As we made clear, the reports last week led to our renewed demand of cancellation. They did not affect our repeatedly stated view that the invitation should never have been made.
There is nothing wrong in celebrating a centenary if we are clear about what we are celebrating. In ordinary circumstances a little nostalgia about past history is not out of place. If nothing had happened more recently it might even have been agreeable to join in recalling the diplomatic and marital manoeuvrings associated with the dynastic claims for the throne of Castile in the stormy 1370s and Britain's involvement through the marriage of John of Gaunt with the daughter of Pedro the Cruel, the mutual exchanges through the century of wool and wine, the flowering of the alliance in the lines of Torres Vedras and Corunna, and the conferment of the Marquisate of Douro on the British general in an Anglo-Portuguese alliance the against oppression.
It is pleasant to recall those associations but now we are forced to look at them through a glass darkened by more recent events Portugal—our ally in World War II? When her concept of the alliance could most kindly be described as unhelpful, at any rate until it was clear which side was winning: and even then there was the official Portuguese State mourning for the death of Hitler.
Nor has she any claim on Britain's hospitality, still less support, when we consider that Portugal, above all nations, has frustrated and sabotaged the sanctions programme against Rhodesia which Britain, under successive Governments, and the world community have enjoined. So, while the claims of nostalgia are slight, the odium of Portugal's record of colonialist oppression is overwhelmnig.
Last week there was the publication in The Times of reports of the most outrageous and bestial atrocities, revolting even in a world that has become inured to war and genocide. Those hon. Gentlemen on the Government benches, and their supporters outside, who, like the Prime Minister last Tuesday, have reacted with mock-righteous ideological passion to our demand that the visit be cancelled seek what we regard as an unworthy refuge in two characteristic evasions. First, it is argued, what warrant is there for supposing these reports to be true? Secondly, even if they do suggest circumstantial support for the view that they are true, why has there been so long an interval—seven months—between the alleged event and its disclosure?
On the second point, I remind hon. Gentlemen opposite that the atrocities at My Lai in South Vietnam took place in March 1968 and they came to light in November 1969, about 20 months after the event. No one now would deny that it took place, and that was in a country—South Vietnam—crowded with the world's journalists and camera crews. It was an atrocity that was perpetrated by a small number of soldiers of a free and democratic country, the United States of America, which has a questioning Press and a vigilant and free Congress—not, as in the Mozambique case, where the troops are the forces of a deeply-rooted Fascist régime, and it is a régime where there is not even a pretence of democratic institutions either in the metropolitan country or in the colony, and where there is a total suppression of Press freedom in both.
If it took 20 months for My Lai to come to the light of day in a country where there is a vigilant Senate, I do not think one can sustain the argument about the fact that it has been seven months in Mozambique. There has been no freedom of Press reporting in Mozambique—or in Angola—and no independent journalists free to observe and file their reports except under Army supervision. There were no camera crews as, for example, there were in both Federal Nigeria and the Biafran enclave.
The reports in The Times have been challenged, and we have to form our own judgment. Every right hon. and hon. Member has to do that. I believe that the editor, in a matter of such moment for international relations and standing in the world both of Portugal and Britain, would not have printed these reports, and at such a time, unless he had good reason to believe them.—[Interruption.] We are dealing today with a very important issue affecting the standing of this country. We are not dealing in the small change of the petty minds of hon. Gentlemen opposite.
These reports have been widely supported by other reports, again accompanied by a great amount of detail, circumstantial it is true, but circumstantial in the sense that, unless one asserts total and calculated dishonesty on the part of the priests and others concerned,

it gives a great deal of chapter and verse and goes beyond the possibility of rumour-mongering on second-hand and third-hand accounts. When the reports were published, in my statement, which I issued immediately, I said that the Prime Minister, unless they were immediately and convincingly repudiated, should cancel the visit.
The House must take into account, and every hon. Member must judge for himself, the supporting evidence, before and since last week, in the shape of reports and statements from the priests concerned, from Spanish missionaries, Portuguese priests, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty and other independent observers. There were, long before this, reports in the overseas Press of parallel atrocities in the Mucumbura region; of the arrest and imprisonment without trial of priests who carried documents and photographs of atrocities in the Tete area; of the burial by Burgos priests of the victims; of destruction bombing of peaceful villages; further evidence in support in reports from Madrid published last Saturday, of statements by priests, eyewitnesses, recently returned from the areas, and evidence of 31 Presbyterian clergy imprisoned without trial.
I referred just now to the two Catholic priests who have been held without trial for 17 months. This is not in question. They claim, and others support their claim, that they witnessed the alleged atrocities. On the BBC on Sunday a Portuguese information spokesman was asked why the priests had not been produced before now to say what they saw. The reply of the Portuguese spokesman is a classic. He said:
Those priests have been imprisoned and they will have a fair trial in September, I think. They have been accused of collaborating with terrorists and we know of many facts and many cases that they did so.
The Portuguese information statement was pre-judging the trial. There is nothing like a fair trial—
we know of many facts and many cases that they did so.
It is that kind of judicial morality and suppression of evidence for which hon. Gentlemen opposite will be voting tonight.
It is a matter for concern for this House that there are a number of independent


allegations of the participation of Rhodesian troops in these events, despite denials by the régime. Still more recently, reports of alleged atrocities in the village of Chawda were published in Sunday's Observer.

Mr. Robert Adley: Does the right hon. Gentleman believe that the attitude of the World Council of Churches is in any way relevant to the issue?

Mr. Wilson: I have not referred to it, but the short answer is "Yes".
On Saturday the BBC reported that five Spanish priests expelled from Mozambique earlier this year, who had pursued their calling in the area in question, have said that if they are allowed free entry into Mozambique they are prepared to justify to any impartial international investigating team the evidence about the Portuguese massacres provided that their personal safety is guaranteed.
Information about the events which were the subject of The Times reports reached Amnesty International from January onwards. In March, and again in July, the chairman of Amnesty International's executive, Dr. Sean Macbride, the former Irish Foreign Minister, wrote to Dr. Caetano asking whether he could meet the Portuguese authorities. His intention was to raise these matters and other aspects of the case of the imprisoned priests whose goal conditions, including 22 hours a day solitary confinement for 17 months, have been the subject of a report submitted to Amnesty International and the International Commission of Jurists—following an investigation that took place in the gaol—by an African lawyer of unimpeachable legal authority. The lawyer in question—I do not think that any hon. Member will impeach his authority; he is a most distinguished African—is Professor Barend van Nierkirk, Professor of Law at Natal University, Durban. I have his report. So has the Prime Minister. So has the Foreign Secretary. I invite the Foreign Secretary, when he speaks this afternoon, to tell the House that he will table this report from Professor van Nierkirk. It is highly relevant to the debate and the vote this evening.
Is it suggested seriously by hon. Members that all these statements are fabrications for some political purpose? Is it suggested that priests have been turned by some malevolent transmutation into professional perjurers? Is any hon. Member really prepared to rely—

Mrs. Elaine Kellett-Bowman: The right hon. Gentleman has referred to missionaries. Has he seen the letter in The Times today from David Vicars, the secretary of the United Society for the Propagation of the Gospel—hardly a Fascist organisation—in which he said that his own Missionary Society
publishes reports from its missionaries in Mozambique and while these are mainly concerned with the pastoral, medical and educational work of the Anglican Church, they also contain incidental tributes to the Portuguese for the manner in which they administer the country and for the efforts they are making to develop it in the interests of all its peoples.
These missionaries also go throughout this area and can also see what is going on.

Mr. Wilson: I have seen the letter quoted by the hon. Lady and many other letters and statements.
It is a fact—I do not think that we shall convince one another across the Floor of the House in this way—that every hon. Member has the duty of satisfying himself from the information available not only in the last week but over the last 30 years.—[Interruption.] I have given my reasons, and if I had been there I should have been under military control the whole way and would never have got through.

Mr. Airey Neave: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I have given way twice—not for long readings from The Times—and there are many hon. Members who wish to speak. I am sorry that I cannot give way to the hon. Gentleman whom I respect.

Mr. John Wilkinson: (Bradford, West): What about Czechoslovakia?

Mr. Wilson: If it is suggested—[Interruption.] Hon Members should deal with this matter seriously and not show their nervousness by shouting.
I was about to ask whether any hon. Member is really prepared to rely, instead of on what has been stated by priests on a number of occasions, on the word of a professional public relations representative of a Fascist régime, whose first attempt on British radio at repudiation began by denying the existence of the place that was mentioned and who later purported to tell the world where it was.

Mr. Peter Rost: (Derbyshire, South-East): Get the evidence.

Mr. Wilson: Hon. Members may put their own interpretation of the events when they catch your eye, Mr. Speaker.
Even in the case of the investigation that was said to have been ordered by the Portuguese Government, announced last weekend—an investigation by the Portuguese Government, for what that would have been worth—yesterday we read that the Governor of the Province is said to have told British journalists that he had not heard of the investigation, and today we read that the Portuguese Embassy spokesman in London said that Lisbon had asked the Governor only for a clarification, rather than for an official inquiry.
The Prime Minister should have insisted that before Dr. Caetano was feted in this country the Portuguese authorities should have agreed to an investigation by, for example, the Human Rights Commission, or the International Red Cross, or the Save the Children Fund, or a commission appointed by the Vatican or by the World Council of Churches—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Oh."]—or any other body—

Mr. Neave: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I have given way twice and others are wishing to speak. Or, a commission appointed by any other body and in whose findings the world would repose confidence. But this has not happened.
The Government and those who support them do not, I trust, base their case on the argument that if these atrocities did take place we should still be prepared to welcome the Portuguese dictator to our shores.
Is the House to be asked to believe and to confirm in the Division Lobbies

tonight the propositions that the Fathers of Burgos and other Spanish missionaries, Portuguese priests, the International Commission of Jurists, Amnesty, jointly with the Committee for Freedom in Mozambique, Angola and Guinea formed a deep-laid conspiracy to fabricate evidence in order to harm the image of the Portuguese Government on the eve of Dr. Caetano's visit? The harm to Portugal's image is caused not by the distortions in the mirror which reflects it but in the reality which it reflects.
To save the time of the House from vain searches by hon. Members for other excuses and justification of the Government's position, I shall refer now to another argument put forward—[Interruption.] I am shouted at by the intellectual hon. Members sitting in the second row from the back on the Government side of the House. I should like to deal with this now. The suggestion has been made that a decision to leave Portugal in the contemptible state of moral quarantine she has earned for herself would equally mean the cessation of diplomatic exchanges with the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe generally, or for that matter, with China, so that when we meet the Soviet Union, Eastern Europe or China—[AN HON. MEMBER: "Or Czechoslovakia".] I said "Eastern Europe", and hon. Members had better start to learn geography; Czechoslovakia is in Eastern Europe, even if hon. Members cannot find it on the map—so that when we meet them we do not meet them as an ally. Such exchanges, whether by Government, Opposition or any hon. Member or group of hon. Members, do not mean for any of us acceptance either of the nature of the régime in question or of acts in denial of human rights committed by that régime.
All of us have expressed our condemnation of the Berlin Wall, including the recent killing, oppression in individual East European countries and the treatment of Soviet Jews, generally and in individual cases, and sometimes hon. Members of all parties have pressed these observations when abroad, with very rough responses.
But the acceptance by both sides of the world and of this House of the doctrine of peaceful co-existence, and


bilateral and multilateral discussions between Governments and other representatives and parliaments, whether of Britain, the United States, the Federal Republic of Germany, the Soviet Union, other Eastern European countries, or China, means that while we may abominate their political and social systems and they may abominate ours, the search for peace, for nuclear disarmament, for better understanding—and the purpose, too, of the European Security Conference—must go on. That is why we welcome the speech of the Foreign Secretary at Helsinki calling for much freer exchanges of all kinds and a much more open system in Europe.
These arguments do not apply in the case of this visit by the Portuguese dictator. They have nothing to contribute to the arguments either about security or about nuclear disarmament. [AN HON. MEMBER: "That is because Portugal is a small country."] But more than that. Unlike the countries that I have mentioned, Portugal is not only a treaty partner of 600 years' standing. She is a member of the Western Alliance, a member of NATO. I ask every hon. Member whether he can justify, in the terms of NATO, Portugal's behaviour. Every signatory to NATO asserted his determination
To safeguard the freedom, common heritage and civilisation of their peoples, founded on the principles of democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law.
That was the affirmation made by every signatory to NATO. Does one hon. Member believe that Portugal, whether at home or abroad, fulfils those requirements of membership of NATO?

Mr. Hugh Dykes: I am grateful to the Leader of the Opposition for giving way at this stage. Why, then. when he was Prime Minister did he not ask for Portugal's departure from NATO?

Mr. Wilson: On the contrary, we were extremely vigilant about her behaviour under NATO in relation to the transfer of NATO arms for use in Africa. No one, after what has been reported in these months, and not only in the past week, can possibly justify Portugal in NATO, nor for that matter can they justify the right hon. Gentleman feting the Prime Minister of Portugal last night.
In the absence, therefore, of clear and indisputable repudiation, not only of the alleged atrocities but also of other oppressive brutalities inherent in colonial policy, in our submission Portugal has no longer any claim to our support or to our welcome.

Mr. Neave: Will the right hon. Gentleman give way?

Mr. Wilson: I have given way three times already.
It is right that the House today should debate these matters. It is appropriate that since Dr. Caetano is here he should be left in no doubt of the strength of feeling which is held in this country—and not only Dr. Caetano. We are also debating the affront to that common heritage founded on democracy, individual liberty and the rule of law, caused by the stubborn persistence with which the Government insist on going through with this visit to the bitter end.
Has the right hon. Gentleman, who is Dr. Caetano's host, has any hon. Gentleman who is contemplating voting against us tonight, any evidence, any confidence, that the Prime Minister can secure an assurance from his guest that today's speeches in the House of Commons will be allowed to be reported in the Portuguese Press tomorrow? Can we have any confidence of that? [Interruption.] I know that hon. Gentlemen would like some speeches made in this House today to be reported there tomorrow.
I feel that the House should draw a further conclusion from Portuguese policy and from the Government's ceremonial condoning of that policy. In this House we are proud—all parties—of Britain's post-war record of decolonisation. We have had differences between parties and Governments about pace and timing and sometimes about method. Our record has not been entirely free of unhappy, even deplorable events such as Hola and Nyasaland. Bat the vigilance of our parliamentary system and the freedom of our Press are such that any attempt to bury those events from public view and full investigation would never have been a possibility in a free country such as this.
Britain's admitted success in converting subject peoples into independent sovereign States is due, in my view, to three things. It is due, first, to the creation by successive British Governments of local indigenous legislative and ministerial councils with progressively more control over their own affairs. It is due, secondly, to the existence in this House, and indeed in another place, of men and women dedicated to the fight against the old imperialism. It is due, thirdly, to the total rejection by all parties in the House, in the process of decolonisation, of any discrimination on grounds of colour or of race. If there is one blot in the Commonwealth today, it is in a State under African rule, not under British rule, where racial discrimination is proclaimed and enforced.

Sir John Rodgers: rose—

Mr. Wilson: I would like the hon. Gentleman to follow this. I hope what I have said about our record of decolonisation is totally uncontroversial.
Against the British record we contrast that of Portugal—no democratic delegation of government in the territories, no free Parliament where Members can crusade for colonial freedom, and no acceptance of the right of democratic self-government.
Before I sit down I want to say this to the Prime Minister. [An hon. Member: "What about the evidence?"] I have already dealt with that. I hope that the Prime Minister now feels, after all he has heard and read this week, that there is more in the case I have presented today than he showed when he lost his head last Tuesday. We know the right hon. Gentleman to be quick to anger and not over-plenteous in mercy. One national paper referred to him as "bellowing with rage" about this incident last week.
What we would like to see and what perhaps some of the Prime Minister's own party would like to see is a situation in which he just once expressed the same anger on the other side. We would like to see him, just for once, bellowing with rage against white racialism—in Rhodesia, for example, against colonialism and, in today's context, against Portuguese policy in Africa.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Edward Heath): I have spent the last eight years of my life fighting against racialism in this country.

Mr. Wilson: But not with the same vigour fighting against racialism in Rhodesia.
The Prime Minister once announced at his party conference in 1966 "a great divide" between his party and the then Government on Rhodesia. He cannot deny that. He made much of it for as long as it would run. There is, he will agree, no great divide on Rhodesia today. The only divide now, as he might be prepared to admit with experience, is, as we then asserted, in Rhodesia. But there is a great divide in the world.

The Prime Minister: The great divide is not a racial one. It was whether Britain was going to attempt a settlement by negotiation. Afterwards it was the right hon. Gentleman who then tried negotiation.

Mr. Wilson: The Prime Minister knows full well, and he can look up all the papers, that we had already started on the talks about talks before he made that speech—and he knew it. He then tried to make party capital out of it. That was after his party had split three ways on the vote on sanctions and just before his party voted for the rejection of the "Tiger" settlement. We would like still to see a little anger for once from the right hon. Gentleman on these African matters.
Our 19th century predecessors in this House were men who were not unimaginative or lacking in courage. They had to face the same sort of problems as we face today. When they saw—in Europe, in Italy, Portugal, Spain—the existence of oppressive and anti-democratic régimes, they were quick to decide, not only where the right course of action lay for Britain, but where British interest truly lay. In those days they were not deterred by any fear of guilt by association with those whom authority called terrorists. Garibaldi and the heroes of the Risorgimento, Kossuth in Hungary, the freedom fighters in the Ottoman Empire, the patriots who fought the Carlists in Spain, and the Miguelites in Portugal, were terrorists. They were terrorists because they could obtain freedom only by fighting.
Aneurin Bevan once said that where there was no democracy for counting heads, decisions would be taken by breaking heads. Britain, more often than not, in the last century was on the right side and was not afraid to face the taunt that it was supporting men who might be called terrorists.
Today I believe we are debating what, in another turning point in world history, Campbell-Bannerman castigated as "methods of barbarism". The highest national interests of Britain as well as the needs of the wider community a century ago dictated a Britain vigorously on the side of freedom. So today in a world where issues of freedom and self-government, but still more of race and colour, occupy the centre of the stage, what is both right and in our interest is, by every democratic and peaceful means, leading, as I hope, to international action to provide a cordon sanitaire around the shores of Portuguese African territories, to support fighters for freedom against their oppressors.

4.20 p.m.

The Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs (Sir Alec Douglas-Home): When the Leader of the Opposition succumbs, as he does frequently nowadays, to spasms of political opportunism— [Interruption.]— it is always possible to answer him immediately with his own words and his own actions. This is so today both about Britain's relations with Portugal and about visits by Prime Ministers or other Ministers overseas, in the context of massacres, proved or unproved.
On relations with Portugal the right hon. Gentleman had this to say in 1969:
Portugal is, of course, an old and loyal ally within NATO. This does not mean that we support her policies in Africa ".-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 11th February 1969; Vol. 777, c. 1117]

Hon. Members: Do you?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: If hon. Members will await my next sentence I shall explain that that, too, is our position which has always been openly explained to the Portuguese. When on this matter the right hon. Gentleman censures us he censures himself. When he said that Portugal was an old and loyal ally the struggle between Frelimo and the Portuguese Army had been going on for years

and there had been bitter fights. The United Nations was passing anti-Portuguese resolutions and yet the right hon. Gentleman rose in this House and proclaimed
Portugal is an old and loyal ally.
Again, and more pertinent to the visit of Dr. Caetano, the right hon. Gentleman just now recalled My Lai. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that at the time of the first reports of events at My Lai he was about to visit the President of the United States. He had this to say of that affair and the question of whether such incidents were part of a consciously pursued policy:
And to suspend judgment on that is neither cowardice nor moral evasion on our part … I do not regard it as the right reaction to what this is, an offence against decency, even of this magnitude, to jump to premature conclusions about a friend and an ally."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December 1969; Vol. 793, c. 44.]
That is our position too. [Interruption.]

Mr. Michael Foot: (Ebbw Vale) rose—

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall finish the sentence and then give way to the hon. Member.
As I was saying, that is exactly our position. But what kind of intellectual agility is it which allows the right hon. Gentleman to make such an eminently sane judgment about himself and then denounce others who say precisely the same thing?

Mr. Foot: Will the right hon. Gentleman tell us now, because we wish to proceed with the debate, what kind of inquiry he has demanded into the alleged massacre?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I am about to say exactly what the right hon. Gentleman said about these inquiries and then I will say what I think of this matter.

Mr. Eric S. Hoffer: (Liverpool, Walton) rose——

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall ask one more question before I give way to the hon. Member. What in the circumstances of My Lai did the right hon. Gentleman do? He went to Washington. [Interruption.]

Mr. Heller: Will the Foreign Secretary accept from me that because my own Government were not always as clearly


forward in the fight against these people —[Laughter]—I realise—[Interruption.]— that that may be regarded as a funny sort of position to take—[Interruption.]but it is not funny, because some of us over the years consistently, day in and day out, have been arguing in this House that we should have nothing whatever to do with Fascist Portugal. [Interruption.]

Mr. Churchill: Tell the Leader of the Opposition.

Mr. Heffer: Will the Foreign Secretary now tell us whether it is right for a Government to have the sort of relationship as exists with Portugal, which is a country renowned for its massacre of people over the years?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I acquit the hon. Member of double standards but not his right hon. Friend.

Mr. William Hamilton: Nor you either.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I shall cite another case. There is no doubt that there was a large-scale massacre by the North Vietnamese at Hue. That did not prevent the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan) from going to North Vietnam. On My Lai, the Leader of the Opposition was even more specific about the inquiry to which he referred. He said:
it is not for us to carry out our investigation or to prejudge theirs."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December 1969; Vol. 793, c. 42.]
That is our position too. The right hon. Gentleman said that of the inquiry that might have been held in relation to My Lai. To have cancelled Dr. Caetano's visit—

Mr. Harold Wilson: I was referring to an inquiry which was to have been announced, to court-martial proceedings in the United States, which is a democratic country. Everyone had the right to be confident about the findings of that court-martial, and that confidence proved to be justified. It was held in a country where there was a vigilant Senate and a vigilant Congress. What assurances has the Foreign Secretary either that there will be judicial proceedings in respect of anything proved in Mozambique or that there is a democratic parliament to insist upon it?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman is falling into the same trap again. He is prejudging.

Mr. Wilson: No.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Gentleman is saying that the Portuguese are incapable of holding an objective inquiry. I say quite firmly to the right hon. Gentleman that to have cancelled Dr. Caetano's visit on the basis of The Times article, which was at best questionable because it was at second or third hand, would have been to "jump to premature conclusions" and to prejudge a case against
an old and loyal ally".
How can the right hon. Gentleman talk in this context of judicial morality? When people talk of hypocrisy the right hon. Gentleman cannot complain.
Neither the Government nor the Opposition know what happened in Mozambique at the time or the place mentioned in The Times article. Some priests have made an accusation of a horrifying and large-scale massacre. The bishop refuses to be drawn into the controversy. Other people who know the area have been unable to corroborate it and have cast serious doubts on the story. Frelimo, which might be thought to wish above all others to blacken the character of Portugal, was unable to corroborate the story of the massacre. From the reports of our own representatives in the area there is evidence of many clashes between guerrillas and Portuguese Army troops, but no evidence of anything on this scale.

Mr. Neave: My right hon. Friend will have noticed that I had great difficulty in interrupting the Leader of the Opposition. My right hon. Friend will be aware of the great esteem in which the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees is held. He reported this morning that there is a refugee settlement 30 miles inside the Zambian frontier, 100 miles from Tete, where there are 3,000 Mozambique refugees. No reports of any massacre in that area have been received during the past 12 months on the Zambian side of the frontier.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The Leader of the Opposition said this afternoon that


everyone must make up his mind on the evidence. What I am saying is that there are certain statements made on one side but there is substantial evidence on the other, and the right hon. Gentleman does not seem to me to have taken that evidence into consideration.

Mr. Jeremy Thorpe: Leaving aside The Times articles for the moment, and leaving aside the Leader of the Opposition, to whom the Foreign and Commonwealth Secretary has made a great deal of reference, does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a big difference between a normal diplomatic exchange with any country of the world, with the Foreign Secretary or Prime Minister of that country coming for talks to this country and having an exchange of views, and a State visit, with the Palace laid on and junketings accorded, particularly for close allies? What is gained by having the latter treatment and not the former? Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that very few people would complain if normal diplomatic exchanges took place between us and the Portuguese, the Russians, the Chinese or anyone else? What we object to is the State visit, with all the panoply that that involves. The political support implied is totally out of keeping with the feelings of the Government towards Portugal, and will be wholly misrepresented both in Portugal and throughout Africa.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: I must put the right hon. Gentleman right on one matter. It is not a State visit. It is one of those visits such as other visits where Communist leaders have gone to the Palace. [Interruption.] The reason why the alliance should be celebrated is concerned with NATO. I shall come to that shortly. I want to take up that matter specifically with the right hon. Gentleman.
The Portuguese have said that an investigation is being made according to their practice and that if hard evidence is produced the guilty will be punished. The right hon. Gentleman himself recalled Vietnam. There the massacre was proved. But he will also recall the wild statements made in the House at the time of the Nigerian civil war, later proved to be untrue. The right hon. Gentleman did not jump to conclusions then, and we should not prejudge now.
The House will have noticed that during his speech the right hon. Gentleman enlarged his ground from the motion, which referred to the massacre, to a general attack on Portugal's African administration. But when was this demand for ostracism of Portugal generated? It was not during the time when he was in charge of the British Government. For six years he was content to send his Foreign and Defence Ministers to collaborate with their Portuguese opposite numbers in the NATO Council. Only now, when Dr. Caetano is actually here, have the Opposition seen fit to stage a debate. They could have done it at any time in the past few months. They could have raised it in the foreign affairs debate and put their views on the visit to the test of a vote in Parliament. They did not do so. The conclusion is inevitable. They have deliberately sought the maximum embarrassment of the Government as hosts and Dr. Caetano as guest in this country.

Mrs. Judith Hart: I am grateful to the right hon. Gentleman for giving way, but will he please withdraw something he has just said? It is a fact, verifiable by reference to HANSARD, that in the foreign affairs debate about two weeks ago the whole matter was raised not only from the Opposition back benches but from the Opposition Front Bench by my right hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Goronwy Roberts) and myself, when we asked that the Caetano visit should not take place.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The right hon. Lady is right. She and the right hon. Gentleman raised the question. [HON. MEMBERS: "Withdraw."] Of course, in so far as I did the right hon. Lady or the right hon. Gentleman an injustice I withdraw that. But they had many parliamentary occasions to put down motions of censure and did not do so until now.
Only now does the Leader of the Opposition, as I understand it, say that Portugal should be expelled from NATO. He was asked the question on television the other night and answered "I think so, yes". The right hon. Gentleman did not pursue that policy when he was in power, when he could have acted. He accepted that we have a very real common strategic concern with the defence of the North Atlantic area, and that the


Portuguese seaboard is a very important part of it.
The facts of geography, which relate to Britain's security, do not change, nor does our mutual interest in trade. It has been suggested in certain quarters that our connections with Portugal are of little value to us. We have very considerable trade with Portugal. The value of our exports to Portugal in 1972 amounted to £114 million. That, for instance, is far greater than our total exports to the three countries of Eastern Europe which the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East is visiting at this very moment.
Presumably the Leader of the Opposition argues that Portuguese policies in Africa have got worse since 1970 and this explains to himself his radical change of view. But the fact is that, whatever view is taken of those policies, assemblies have been set up in Mozambique, elected on a common roll, with considerable legislative powers. There is in Mozambique today an assembly with a non-European majority.
I have told the Portuguese Government often that we disagree with their policy towards Africa. We have believed in granting independence to our colonies. There have been criticisms of the timing. Some say that we went too fast, others that we went too slow. There have been criticisms of lack of democracy in some of our previous colonies after the hand-over of power. But we took a conscious decision to grant independence in spite of the various risks, and I believe that that was the right policy.
The Portuguese policies are different, and the right hon. Gentleman has made a forthright attack on them today. But the question before us is not, after the right hon. Gentleman's speech, the African policies of the Portuguese but whether we should disrupt NATO and cast away the alliance with Portgual, and with it part of our own security, because we have a different concept of African policy from that of the Portuguese. A Labour Member shakes his head, but I understood his right hon. Friend to say that Portugal was no longer fit to be in NATO. The right hon. Gentleman said on the BBC that Portugal is outside the pale of civilised society. I do not know exactly what he means. Presumably he means that we

should have no contacts with her at ali— unlike Czechoslovakia.
The view of Her Majesty's Government is that we should not attempt to hide or disguise our differences with the Portuguese in Africa. I made that clear in Portugal as Foreign Secretary as long ago as 1961. But the Government believe that we should not throw away the valuable ties that we have with Portugal in a fit of self-righteous indignation based on no foundation of fact.
The Portuguese rôle in the security of Europe and the Atlantic Alliance is important. That being our position, and convinced opinion, it would be the height of hypocrisy not to celebrate the 600th anniversary of the alliance. This country must never allow foreign policy and defence policy to become matters of independent judgment and erratic change, still less political playthings.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition has said that every hon. Member has a duty to satisfy himself on the evidence available to him. I am bound to say that he did so extremely quickly. The House today will have a double satisfaction. Hon. Members will be able to go into the Lobby against one who will jump on any bandwagon to gain a vote and in favour of a firm alliance which serves the interests and security of Britain, Europe and the Atlantic Alliance.

4.41 p.m.

Mr. Frank Judd: There are some hon. Members who have over many years been pointing out consistently the significance of British involvement with Portugal, both within NATO and within Portugal's general policy. I begin by taking up the issue of the massacre which is now the immediate concern of the House. I congratulate my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition on the unqualified way in which he has spoken out today, and before today, in condemnation of action which can be regarded only as a negation of all the principles which we believe to be worth while within the Western community.
We must recognise that it is a lamentable comment on the state of the media and on public concern in Britain that it takes reports of the severed head of a small child being kicked around as a football before we begin to give a matter


of this kind the urgent and serious consideration which it deserves. For many years some hon. Members have been advocating the need to discuss these matters in the House and publicly, but they have received little attention. That is because, for various reasons, the media have not found enough excitement and enough immediate drama in the situation to make it qualify for the type of attention which a minority believe it deserves.
It would be unfortunate if in our real and natural concern about the massacre we lost sight of the main issue. The massacre, however gruesome and however sad, is only a symptom in a long ongoing story. The evidence has been present for more than 15 years. I had the opportunity in 1969, together with some of my colleagues, to visit the Mozambique-Zambian frontier. In the course of that visit we were able to dig shrapnel and the fragments of Portuguese weapons from a Zambian village in which Zambians had been killed. They were weapons of standard NATO style which had been used in the prosecution of Portugal's campaign against Africans struggling for their freedom.
I hope that the House will realise, whatever the ultimate outcome of the independent investigations which we all hope will take place into this particular massacre, that the issue which we are discussing is far wider than any one incident, however serious such an incident might be.
There are several matters which we must bear in mind in the context of evaluating this episode. First, we must comment upon the entirely phoney nature of the sudden resurrection of an old alliance. We must think again of the 1939–45 war when we were struggling, at one stage almost alone, within Europe to maintain and protect democracy as we understood it. The position of our old ally at that juncture was at best ambivalent and at worst downright subversive in the support which it was surreptitiously giving to our enemies, in backing both sides at once. At the end of the war the flags on official buildings within Portugal flew at half mast when the news of Hitler's death was announced. Can it be said that that never marred the relationship between the Portuguese Government and the people of Great Britain?
We must also remember—this makes the situation at the moment quite ludicrous—that at the very time when we are welcoming the Portuguese Prime Minister to this country—with all the trappings of a State visit, even if the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs denies that it is a State visit—no one country has done more to sustain the rebellion against British constitutional authority and the Crown than the Portuguese Government. That Government have flagrantly and openly supported Ian Smith and his illegal régime in their determination to defy successive British Governments and the international community.
Further, we must recognise, when we evaluate the significance of Dr. Caetano's visit that it should be considered in the context of Southern African politics as a whole. It is undeniable that there is an economic, military and political alliance between the Portuguese Government, the South African Government and the illegal Rhodesian régime. The Government, as they love to do, have come to the House and said that if they are forced to have relations with South Africa that does not mean that they condone all the policies of the South African Government. That does not mean that they condone the racialist policies of the South African Government. It is, therefore, strange that we should be giving such a fulsome welcome to the leader of a country which, by its policies, is determined to shore up racialism and oppression in South Africa as well as in Rhodesia.
We must not forget the position within Portugal. Some of the immediate preoccupation with the news of the massacre which in recent weeks has taken up so much space in the Press and on radio and television may have resulted in the overlooking of the dire straits which confront people in mainland Portugal who believe in democracy and freedom. In Portugal, of course, there is no meaningful democracy or freedom as we understand it. There are no free trade unions. There is no free Press and there is no free parliamentary system.
No doubt I shall be told, as my right hon. Friend was told by the Secretary of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs, that it is no good singling out Caetano and the Portuguese for special


condemnation. The question is asked "What is the difference between a State visit by Mr. Brezhnev from the Soviet Union and a visit by Dr. Caetano from Portugal?" There is every difference in the world. When Mr. Brezhnev comes here we know what the British position is on everything which is atrociously wrong within the Soviet system. We all know that Mr. Brezhnev comes here as the head of a country whose policies we do not support. We understand that it is the meeting between two heads of State on that basis.
I accept that part of the Government's argument that in the kind of world in which we live it is inevitable that we must have diplomatic relations with political systems of which we do not necessarily approve. But the difference between this and the visit by Dr. Caetano is that his comes in the context of the old alliance and of a supposed special relationship. It is used by the Portuguese Government in the same way as the Duke of Edinburgh's visit to Portugal-namely, to suggest that we condone or even approve of Portugal's policies within mainland Portugal and within Portugal's African territories.
It is all very well the right hon. Gentleman saying to us-I always, in a sense, respect his personal integrity in these matters-that he takes every opportunity with his right hon. Friend the Prime Minister to point out to the Portuguese régime that we do not support the policies to which it is committed. But what impact does that have on Portugal or on the world? What impact will that have if such things are said privately in conversations which go unreported in closed rooms? The overt expression of British opinion is a warm, rich and elaborate welcome for the Portuguese Prime Minister.
My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition suggested in his argument that we were concerned with the self-interest of Britain in the sense of an enlightened long-term prospective. What is so disastrous about foreign policy under the present Government is that all the time we seem to be trapped in a narrow short-term preoccupation which fails to take into account the real challenges to humanity.
My final condemnation of Dr. Caetano's visit within the terms which I have used is that in Southern Africa a great confrontation is developing. None of us can say how long that confrontation will take fully to materialise. None of us can say what course it will take. All of us pray that it will not turn in the end into a ghastly blood bath. But we all must recognise that the confrontation is clearly there. It is between those who are committed to perpetuating unrepresentative, minority white racialist rule, whatever the trappings which may be put on it within Portugal—and sometimes the hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) likes to tell us about democratic elections—

Sir J. Rodgers: The hon. Gentleman talks about racialist rule in these countries. Is he not aware that certain of the governors of these territories are coloured people? There is no racialism there. If the hon. Gentleman wants to go to one area in Africa where there is no racialism, he should go to Mozambique and Angola. I have been there, as others have, and I have seen it with my own eyes.

Mr. Judd: One could argue that the Bantustans in South Africa are not racialist. Indeed, the South African Government would argue that there is African majority rule in the Bantustans, but who would believe that South Africa is not a racialist State and that the African Governments of Bantustans were able to operate in freedom and were not in the end completely under the control of the white racialist régime?
We have to decide on which side we stand in this confrontation. Is it on the side of the emancipation of the majority of the people, or is it not? If we are not on the side of the emancipation of the majority of the people, then, apart from the fact that we may be undermining here at home the values which make our civilisation worth while by our obstinacy and blinkered approach to foreign policy, on the long-term view we shall be undermining our own economic self-interest, because ultimately the majority will triumph and we shall then be seen by them as those who were determined to stand by their oppressors until the last.
The hon. Member for Haltemprice (Mr. Wall) loves to plead the cause of Portuguese enlightenment in these matters.
When I look around the world, I notice that one of the characteristics of the international community in which we live is that those principles which are dear to the very basis of this House and to the very basis of our democratic society in Britain—freedom, tolerance, free communication in the Press—are under pressure on many fronts. I believe that this is the time for statesmanship on both sides of the House to explain to the British people that we must stand firm and seek every possible opportunity to emphasise our commitment to those principles which are the basis of our society.
What I fear is that the reception accorded to the Portuguese Prime Minister on this occasion is an indication that. in the final analysis, somehow or other our leaders do not recognise the challenges which are there to the things to which they subscribe and that in their short-sightedness they are prepared to take action which may in the end undermine the principles of freedom and liberty in our own society as well as in the international community.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Miss Harvie Anderson): Order. I hope that all hon. Members realise how many of them want to take part in the debate.

4.54 p.m.

Mr. John Biggs-Davison: Whatever doubts there may be about this alleged massacre, there are no doubts about a massacre perpetrated shortly before my first experience of Portuguese Africa. This was as long ago as 1961. It fell to me to be the first Member of this House to tour Angola soon after that vast, peaceful and almost entirely undefended territory had been invaded from across the frontier with the anarchic Congo by the UPA—"Union of the Population of Angola"—terrorists of Holden Roberto.
There was no popular rising. There was a carefully planned series of attacks made simultaneously at widely separate places. When 1 reported to the House in October 1961 I described, correctly,
… the biggest massacre of whites that has ever occurred in Africa, and that is something which has largely passed unnoticed in this House and in the Press of this country.
Memory and indignation are selective. For example, everyone in this House

knows about Sharpeville. What exactly did happen at Stanleyville? How many thousands of people died in Burundi? There is a mental self-censorship of ideology which puts the shutters down.
I added in my speech in 1961:
One incident, reported by more than one person, was of a settler put to death by being fed to a circular saw."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 31st October 1961; Vol. 648, c. 61–2.]
When I was told that in Angola, I did not believe it, for these were not the Africans I knew. Then the story was given to Le Monde at a conference held by UPA in Leopoldville, now Kinshasa. The Le Monde correspondent reported that UPA leaders had told the conference that the settler and his wife and children were given to the circular saw. He reported that they had said it with broad smiles—avec un large sourire.
I bring this up now because I think we should know what sort of people some of the so-called "freedom fighters" are who are idolised by armchair revolutionaries and even clerics in this country. We should also reflect—and perhaps the Leader of the Opposition should do this, for he is as ignorant of warfare as he is of Africa—on what is involved in insurgency and guerrilla warfare. Atrocities are committed and reprisals are exacted. These are the terrible results of this kind of struggle.
I have seen evidence in Mozambique that Frelimo has undoubtedly murdered, tortured and kidnapped many innocent Africans of different races and colour. Of course it is the black Africans who suffer most in all these conflicts.
Nothing has been said in this House about the attack on St. Albert's Mission. What did Father Hastings have to say about that? One may think that the abduction of Christian African children is somewhat inappropriate among the recipients of subventions from the World Council of Churches. Is Frelimo outside the "pale of civilisation"—words which have been used by the Leader of the Opposition, as we were reminded by my right hon. Friend the Foreign Secretary?
In 1961, rape, mutilation and massacre committed by drugged and bewitched Bakongo in Angola were answered by terrible reprisals from the settlers, and it took the arrival of the first Portuguese


regular troops in that almost ungarrisoned province—it certainly was not held by force—to put a stop to them. The Portuguese Army did so. Honour attended the conduct of its operations there and that, I believe, remains the spirit of the Portuguese Army.
I am glad that the Portuguese Government are rigorously to investigate this allegation. Such inquiries are for the sovereign power concerned. It is not for us to carry out an investigation or to prejudge theirs. Those are words of the Leader of the Opposition, when he was Prime Minister, about the My Lai massacre. He added:
I do not regard it as the right reaction to what this is, an offence against decency, even of this magnitude, to jump to premature conclusions…. "-[OFFICIAL REPORT, 8th December 1969; Vol. 793, c. 44.]
In 1969, the right hon. Gentleman spoke of Portugal as being an "old and loyal ally within NATO". If he knew that to be the case then, does he not know that the alliance is as necessary today as ever it was? Do we not need to secure the Cape route? Certainly, the Labour Party in office thought so when they delegated increased responsibility to the South African Navy for the security of the Cape route. They understood in office the realities of the fact that the only ports and strategic positions in Africa upon which we could count in war are, apart from French Djibouti, either South African or Portuguese.
I do not see present any shadow spokesman for defence. Yet, when the Labour Government were in office they gave increased responsibility to the South African Navy. If we needed then the support of South Africa and of Portugal, we need it today. We need the Lisnave dockyards of Lisbon, which can take million ton tankers. We need the Sal airport, the objective of the PAIGC revolutionary movement, the "C" standing for Cape Verde islands, who assail Portuguese Guinea from Guinea-Conakry and Senegal. The alliance is necessary, and right hon. Gentlemen who might one day be responsible for the defence of this country ought to know it. That is why the centres of world subversion support Frelimo and all the revolutionary movements operating in Portuguese Africa and Iberian Portugal. The leader of the

Opposition told us that he wanted to place a cordon sanitaire round Portugal. He should then have told us what is his alternative strategy for this country and for the West.
Is the right hon. Gentleman perhaps thinking in his arrogance that he can impose his policy upon Portugal? Is he some kind of Brezhnev who would impose upon a Western ally the limited sovereignty "enforced in the Warsaw bloc? Does he think that he can dictate the internal policy of Portugal and the African policy of Portugal? What is the strategy of the Labour Party? Have they surrendered? On whose side are they in the struggle going on in the world today?
The right hon. Gentleman really scraped the barrel when he tried to smear Portugal with racism. That is ludicrous to anyone who knows Portugal or Africa. Ever since that half-English prince, Henry the Navigator, encouraged the intermarriage of white Portuguese and Guinean negresses—before that, there was inter-marriage between white Portuguese and Arabs—Portugal has been non-racial. The infant parliamentary institutions, both in the overseas States and provinces and in Europe, are multiracial.
When some of my hon. Friends and I recently attended the National Assembly in Lisbon—[Laughter.] The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) laughs. Does he not want to see the evolution of parliamentary institutions? Three of the most eloquent and interesting speeches that we heard came from black deputies, one from Bissau, capital of Portuguese Guinea, one from Lourenco Marques in Mozambique and one from Nampula, also in Mozambique. There is no colour bar in Portuguese Africa.
The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale, who is to reply to this debate, I understand, has not sat in a café in Lourenco Marques where the waiter might be white and the owner of the cafe black. Nor has he been, as I have, in Portuguese Guinea and seen white or almost white soldiers clearing the bush to build an airstrip, commanded by a black Fula sergeant. This is the reality. It is interesting to us, but to the Portuguese it is normal.
The reason for much of this criticism of Portuguese policy in Africa is that


people in this country feel a little guilty. The Leader of the Opposition, and indeed my right hon. Friend, took pride in our programme of decolonisation, but in our hearts we know—we have men like General Amin to remind us—that a more gradual advance to self-government would have benefited the poorest, the most helpless, of Africans in the territories for which this House used to be responsible.
In December 1965, Mr. Julius Nyerere, the most ambitious nationalist leader in Tanganyika at that time, was at the United Nations. In reply to a question posed in the Fourth Committee of the General Assembly, he said that Tanganyika should be independent in about 10 years. In fact, it attained independence in 1961. The pace, we know in our hearts, was too fast—[HON. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."] We know it, and those who dispute it, those who were quite happy to see—

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: That is cock.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: That is not a very parliamentary expression.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Member has just been criticising the Labour Party for failing to pay proper regard to what was going on inside Portuguese territories, which are very difficult for us to enter but to which he has easy access. I would make the same kind of criticism of him—that he has not been to Tanzania since independence and has not seen the enormous stability of that country and the enormous development of the Africans in it.

Mr. Biggs-Davison: I pay full credit to leaders in such countries, who, against terrible difficulties, which were our legacy, have done extraordinarily well. But my point is that they were ill-served. [Interruption.] If the hon. Gentleman complains about time being taken, I would only point out that he is taking up my time. The argument is the contrast with the more gradual approach of the Portuguese to the devolution of power to the African people.
If we had more humility, we might learn something from Portugal, who is showing Africa an alternative to that kind of self-determination, which leads either to white or to black supremacy.
The larger legislative autonomy now conferred in the Portugese territories, the granting of the title of State to Angola and Mozambique, show that further progress may be in a federal or even a "Commonwealth" direction.
But whatever the direction of the evolution it is for them to decide; it is for the Africans of all colours in the Portuguese territories to decide. They are entitled to our sympathy and our help in the establishment of new Brazils on the African shores of the Atlantic and Indian Oceans.

5.6 p.m.

Mr. David Steel (Roxbourgh, Selkirk and Peebles): The hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) is a consistent apologist for the Portuguese and other régimes in Africa. I will return to what he said in a moment, but first I shall take up two point from the speech of the Leader of the Opposition. He said there was nothing new in the demand of the Opposition that the invitation to Dr. Caetano should be cancelled. I accept that is the case. But from a parliamentary point of view it would have been more effective had we had this debate before Dr. Caetano came here. It would have been more constructive and might well have influenced the eventual outcome of his visit.
It is unfortunate that we are debating this so late in the day. Secondly, while I welcome many of the things said by the Leader of the Opposition I must agree that what was said by the hon. Member for Liverpool, Walton (Mr Heller) led many of us to remember questions put during the time of the Labour Government by hon. Members in different parts of the House about the discovery of NATO arms in the Portuguese territories and the bromide replies emanating from Ministers in that Government. Having made these two criticisms of the Opposition's case, in principle it is a case which I and my colleagues will support in the lobbies tonight.
As for the hon. Member for Chigwell, he must remember that the actual situation in Portugal is that it is a relatively small and weak economy with almost 50 per cent. of its national budget tied up in a series of colonial wars. Is that the lesson he wants us to learn from Portugal, as he said at the end of his speech?
It is tied up in a series of wars that it knows it cannot win—and that is the lesson which the Portuguese ought to be willing to learn from the experience of other colonial Powers in Africa. It would be a more constructive attitude in this debate if we were to consider—because the affairs of Portuguese Africa are rarely discussed or debated here—ways in which we, as allies of Portugal or as members of the European Community or the United Nations, can, at a multi-national level, assist Portugal to disengage from the territories in Southern Africa, what aid we might give, for example, by education, in the Portuguese territories, to advance self-government in the three territories which it controls at present.
We have to turn to consider the recent incident of the alleged massacre at Wiriyamu. The Foreign Secretary will understand when I use the phraseology of Scottish legal terminology and say that the case is not proven. That would be the right way of putting it, I believe. Equally, there is clearly a case to be answered. There is sufficient corroboration from different priests in Italy and Spain for a case to be answered. That is all we are saying.
I do not think we can accept from an undemocratic Government that some sort of inquiry by an army officer sent out to the area is in any way satisfactory. The least we are entitled to demand, if this visit is to proceed, is that the Portuguese Government should accept some independent inquiry into these serious allegations. Without laying down terms or dictating to the Government what the nature of the inquiry might be, there are many bodies, some mentioned by the Leader of the Opposition, which could conduct an independent inquiry outside the authority of the Portuguese Government, which is what is called for.
I want to answer the point made by the hon. Member for Chigwell about atrocities in other parts of Africa. Of course they have occurred, and on a much larger scale than this alleged massacre at Wiriyamu. That is true. But was it ever suggested that we should invite the Head of State of Burundi to this country and give him a banquet? Was it ever suggested that Labour or Liberal Members were apologising for the state of affairs in the

Congo? I do not recall that, and yet we have Members who apologise, explain away, or wish to disbelieve, any allegation made about the conduct of affairs in Portuguese territories.
The most important demand that ought to come from Labour and Liberal Members tonight is a demand for an independent inquiry by some impartial and internationally respected body into what has happened or is alleged to have hap-paned in Mozambique.
We must look at the situation in Portugal. We are seeing a growing number of migrant workers leaving Portugal and working elsewhere, particularly in the EEC countries. There is, therefore, a growing population in Portugal which is experiencing different living standards, which is experiencing what life in a free society can be like. These people return to their country. This is a hopeful symbol which could give rise to possibilities of future change.
There is nothing wrong with diplomatic contacts between Portugal and this country. The Foreign Secretary was wrong to refer to demands for ostracism of Portugal. I do not think that that case has been put at all. What we object to is that there should be a quasi-State visit. I am not sure of the subtleties between different levels of banquet in this country and if my terminology is incorrect I apologise. I find this quasi-State visit absolutely nauseating and unnecessary. More important, it is open to wide-spread misinterpretation, particularly in Africa, about where we stand ill relation to Portuguese policy.
In Southern Africa as a whole, in which I include South Africa, Rhodesia, and the Portuguese territories, there is a real danger that if we do not feel our way towards a peaceful transition towards African self-government we shall see that part of the continent of Africa developing rather like Vietnam. That would be a major tragedy, and suffering of a kind which may have taken place at Wiriyamu would be much greater. It is surely in the attempt to avoid that that we must make clear which side we are on. The great criticism of the Government's invitation to Dr. Caetano is that it muddies the waters and confuses the issue as to which side we are on.

5.14 p.m.

Mr. Stephen Hastings: I listened carefully to the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) and I certainly agree with him about one thing. He said at the beginning of a speech that a great deal of the effect which was hoped for on the Labour and Liberal benches in bringing this debate forward has been totally ruined by the timing. This shows it up for what it is. There is no question about that.
I am sure that the hon. Member's views on Africa are sincerely held. I hold views myself. I have been to Africa quite a lot and I have tried to visit both sides of what is I suppose the sad dividing line. I wish that he would do the same. Perhaps he has. I am sure that he would be welcome if he were to pay a visit to the Portuguese territories. I do not think that he or any other Member of this House would have difficulty. If he had spent an adequate period there, I cannot believe that, knowing him to be a fair-minded person, he would have made a speech like the speech he made today. What he said bears no relation to the situation as those who have tried to find out about it have seen it to be.
The debate has nothing to do with the Opposition's attitude to Portuguese policy over a long period. It was sparked off by a request for a debate under Standing Order No. 9 which was based entirely on the report of an alleged massacre and was immediately supported by the Leader of the Opposition. That is the reason for this debate. To pretend otherwise is false. There is a classic and well-established method of evaluation of intelligence or reports of any nature and it should be known to any ex-Prime Minister and to the editor of any major newspaper in this country. I am not at all certain that The Times has ever sent anybody to corroborate its story. Mercifully other newspapers have done so. When will The Times take the trouble to do so? This was a grave matter to report irresponsibly.
One must get the answer to three questions in order to make a serious evaluation. First, who is the real source? Clearly it is not the editor of The Times. Secondly, did he or they have access to the event? Thirdly, what were his or their motives in making the report?
The matter has been widely discussed in the newspapers and in the House and I do not wish to spend too much time on it, but we are here concerned with a priest who, as far as I know, has never been in Mozambique; who has a well-known anti-Portuguese record dating back to 1954 when he was writing strong articles against the Portuguese before the attack on Goa, and who has now reported a massacre in a place which no one has been able to find. He heard about the matter from priests living in Spain who have been reported to profess that they are principally engaged in anything which will embarrass the Portuguese Government. When, at their suggestion, the matter was checked with priests of the same order in Mozambique, they refused to confirm it and the bishop denied knowing anything about it. The only priest found in the area refused even to give his name. Not even Frelimo knew anything about it, otherwise that organisation would have exploited it. On that basis, what sort of evaluation can one put on the report?
We have had all this dishonest and provocative rubbish just before the visit of the Prime Minister of Portugal so that the Marxist and Communist rabble in this country can have a week of subsidised demonstrations. If this is the British Left, I hazard that there are even some hon. Members opposite who must feel very uneasy indeed, especially those who have been to Angola and Mozambique and whose reactions we know. Where are they? Why does not one of them speak up today?
What persuades hon. Members opposite that they know better how to deal with affairs in that part of Central Africa than a nation which has administered it and whose people have lived there for over 450 years? As to our own record in the past 20 or 25 years in Central Africa, on what do they think they or, indeed, any of us have to congratulate ourselves? On some things, yes, but what about the murderous régime in Zanzibar and the mess in Rhodesia? Are Opposition Members proud of General Amin?
There are two sides to this story, and it would be wiser of hon. Members opposite to contemplate what is really going on in Central Africa in more silence than they do, and to pay a little more


respect to people who may have a different view but whose record is open and there to see for anybody who wants to see it.

Mr. Robert Maclennan: Does the hon. Gentleman agree that the views of many of my hon. Friends are not unique to people in the Leftward-looking half of the population of this country? Does he recall the words of Cecil Rhodes, who, in describing the rule of the Portuguese in Africa, said:
They are a bad race and have had 300 years on the coast and all they have done is to bring a curse to any place they have occupied".

Mr. Hastings: If the Opposition's case rests on what Cecil Rhodes said, there are many quotations from Cecil Rhodes with which I could reply.
Of course I realise that the case against is not confined to Marxists, wherever they may be, in or outside this House. I know that sincere views are held, and we have heard some of them today. But my comments are justified, and what I have said about the performance of the Marxists should give cause for thought even to the hon. Member for Caithness and Sutherland (Mr. Maclennan), and I am sure that it does.
The administration in Portuguese Africa is by any comparable standards fair and, in some ways, highly imaginative. Its multiracialism, which has been mentioned more than once today, is a solid fact and is known to many hon. Members opposite. But if they are constantly subjected to armed attack the Portuguese are bound to react. It is astonishing that not more incidents have been reported—and I have some experience of the guerrilla war. If the populations of these territories were disaffected, miserable and terrified, as hon. Members opposite pretend, could it seriously be believed that these attacks could be contained by an army which is more than half local African? Of course it could not.
There is no doubt about who are behind the guerrilla movements. This is the reason for much of the lying and frenetic demonstrations from which we are suffering this week. Should Communism ever dominate in Central Africa, for how long do hon. Members opposite

think the black African States would remain? They would disappear overnight and liberty would soon be at an end,
By no stretch of the imagination is liberty in the world in general threatened by any despotism of the Right; it is overwhelmingly threatened by despotism of the Left. The malignant oppression in the Soviet empire and her subversive designs everywhere are a constant threat and should be a constant cause of shame to the free world. Yet hon. Members opposite condone it, keep quiet about it, and so frequently visit those countries that I cannot believe that they think that they are converting people on the other side of the Iron Curtain to liberty.
As far as I know, no one but the guerrillas are trying to escape from Portguese Africa. The movement is rather into Rhodesia, where the lucrative jobs are. But the walls of the Soviet empire are still marked after 28 years by barbed wire and machine guns, not to keep her enemies out, but to keep her subject peoples in. Despite what the Leader of the Opposition said today, what squeak did we hear from hon. Members opposite when people were recently murdered on the Berlin Wall or when they were shot on many previous occasions? Why was there no demand from them for an emergency debate if they cared about liberty'?
The Leader of the Opposition is not interested in any true struggle for liberty. He is simply interested in jumping on any bandwagon that will curry favour with his Marxist Left. That is why this debate is the most disgraceful and dishonest waste of parliamentary time that I can remember in 13 years.

5.24 p.m.

Mr. Alexander W. Lyon: The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) was in his usual form when talking about Africa. He told Opposition Members in caustic terms that we were hypocrites. He is the one who has consistently supported every racialist régime and every racialist action in Africa during the time that I have been a Member. He says that we believe the Africans when they tell us about their plight and we do not believe the Portuguese. He told us that we were wrong in our analysis of Rhodesia. He told us that it was only the Communist-led Zapu and Zanu who


were asking for freedom, and that the great mass of the African people in Rhodesia were settled and peaceful, and loved their white rulers. He must not be surprised, therefore, if I take with a little cynicism his analysis of the Portuguese territories in Africa.
The hon. Gentleman has an advantage over me. He has been to the Portuguese territories. It is a little more difficult for us of the Left to get into those territories. The hon. Gentleman claimed that some had been there, but unfortunately they are not here today. One wonders how they managed to get in. I have one advantage over the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire. He was talking about the kind of people who lead Frelimo, and their odious nature. He was talking about the double-dyed Marxist hue of those people. I knew Eduardo Mondlane, who set up Frelimo. He was one of the greatest men I have ever met. He was a man of enormous Christian conviction, who was convinced that only by violence could he free his people. He tried every other way before finally deciding that Frelimo was the only answer. He devoted his life to this work, and his life was put to an end by a Portuguese bomb.

Mr. Hastings: Clearly, my speech has displeased the hon. Gentleman and I am sorry about that, but I wish to make clear that I did not attach any of the adjectives he used to leaders of the guerrilla movement. I was referring to those behind them, which is a different matter.

Mr. Lyon: The hon. Gentleman must give them credit for being rational, intelligent beings. Marcelinos dos Santos, the Vice-President of Frelimo, was asked at Chatham House by the hon. Member for Ormskirk (Mr. Soref) why the guerrillas accepted arms from the Communists. De Santos said, "Because there is no one else in the world who will give us arms, and we must have arms to prosecute the struggle." None of them thinks that because they take arms from the Communists they will come under the control of the Communists. Where this pattern of events has occurred before in Africa there is no evidence that the Communists have maintained a solid foothold once independence has come.
If the guerrillas are to fight for independence, and if they are right in their analysis that violence is the only way

to get their independence, they must have arms. As no Government who arc friendly towards the Portuguese Government—as are the British Government—are likely to provide them with arms, and as no Government in the West are likely to be excluded from that category, where are they to look for arms, except to the Communist States? If we are to take sides in this issue, I am whole-heartedly on the side of the freedom fighters.
I have heard what the Foreign Secretary said this afternoon about the hypocrisy of condemning this visit and not condemning visits by Communist dictators. My hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd) exploded that argument. The argument is not that we should not have relationships with such people. The argument is that a visit—albeit not a State visit—during which there will be celebrations, when we put at the disposal of the Prime Minister the Painted Hall at Greenwich—when was that last used for a visit?—when this Fascist leader of a Fascist State is brought to Buckingham Palace to have dinner with the Queen, has all the hallmarks of indicating not tolerance, not disapproval, but wholehearted approval of what those leaders are doing. When did a leader of a Communist State last go to dinner in the City with the Lord Mayor of London, and when did the Lord Mayor of London last turn to his guest and ask for his forgiveness because someone had said something rude about his State? Yet Lord Mais apologises for the allegations of atrocities that even at the highest remain unproven and in my view are clearly proven.
I am against this visit in any event. I have been against it ever since it was aired. The fact that allegations of atrocities have been made cannot be brushed under the carpet. Even at the highest, as the hon. Member for Roxburgh, Selkirk and Peebles (Mr. David Steel) said, the allegations are unproven, and in those circumstances it was unwise for the Government to go ahead with the visit.
I find the allegations entirely credible. I was one of the group to which my hon. Friend the Member for Portsmouth, West referred as having visited Zambia in 1969 to see the remains of a village that had been bombed and strafed by Portuguese fighters. The Portuguese


apologised to the Zambian Government for having gone over the border and strafed the wrong village. That shows the kind of warfare they were waging. They were strafing African villages which were no more than mud huts, with no evidence that they were occupied by supporters of Frelimo. They were strafing the villages willy-nilly, and that is why they went over the border.
The hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire asked how it could be said that the bulk of the African people were not wholeheartedly behind the Portuguese authorities. I can give him one argument why that cannot be said. For several miles back they have had to clear all the areas round the frontiers of Mozambique of inhabitants because they were helping Frelimo. Why is it that Frelimo, with all the difficulty of waging a guerrilla war, is now occupying most of the area of Niassa Province, most of the northern area of Cabo Delgado, most of Tete and the Cabora Bassa? The hon. Gentleman says, "Go to see it". They have to see it—armed convoys, with troops before and aft. In guerrilla warfare the guerrillas are not in open confrontation with heavily armed forces. They sink back into the bush and let them go through.
I remember that in 1971, when there was the campaign called the Gordian Knot", I read in the Economist that the Frelimo struggle was ended—that the Portuguese had thrown in all their armed might and had put an end to Frelimo. I cut out that article and took it with me to Tanzania. I showed it to Marcelinos dos Santos, the Vice-President of Frelimo. He read it with some astonishment and then laughed out loud. I asked him if it were true that the Portuguese had cut off the border and sealed it and he said, "Of course it is true". He said that the Portuguese first ran the heavy armour along, then came with earth-clearing machinery and cleared the area of land behind. They then came with troops and, behind them, heavy armour. He said that the guerrillas had rifles and that they could not fight heavy armour with rifles. He said. "We go out into the bush, they move through and we move in behind". He said that the Portuguese occupied the area of land which the earth-clearing

machinery was on at any given moment, but that once they had gone through the guerrillas occupied it again. That is the way in which the guerrilla war is being waged.
The real test is, to whom do the people look for education and welfare in their normal life? For a large area of Northern Mozambique they look to Frelimo, and that is why the World Council of Churches is assisting. For that reason I suggest that it was totally wrong for us to encourage the attitude of the Portuguese Government by this invitation and that we should ask Caetano to go home.

5.35 p.m.

Mr. David Walder: I have heard some curious arguments in this Chamber today. One strain we have in our national life is that the British people have always objected—and this is a healthy thing—to visitors from foreign countries of whose régimes they have disapproved. The Barclays brewers once chased an Austrian general because he took part in the suppression of the Hungarians in 1848. The Czar of Russia went to Balmoral and while passing through one of the streets in Scotland was shouted at with cries of "Bloody murderer!" The Czar of Russia at a later stage became one of our allies. I think that this is a healthy tradition.
Where this tradition goes wrong is when we in this country try to object to internal régimes over which we have no control—internal régimes of countries who have come to their form of government by a very different history and by different processes from ours. The countries that are frequently singled out by Left-wing organisations for protest are Spain, Portugal and Greece. At present we have in this country an official though not a State guest from a country which is our oldest ally. I must confess that I do not attach a great deal of importance to the "oldest ally" argument. No doubt it was dictated at various stages by self-interest on both sides. Portugal tended to be our ally because Spain was our enemy, and there are some aspects of Portuguese aid to us in the last two world wars which, somehow, are still looking for an author to celebrate them.
The difficulty of the situation is that Greece and Spain, for example, have managed their own affairs in their own way, and it is fatuous and silly of us to think that in a debate in the House of Commons we can affect them. Portugal, however, operates in an area of Africa that is still colonial—and it is an area in which we must be very careful, because we are judged by our friends. What is the situation in regard to Russia? I do not attach much importance to what I call the "double standard" argument. It seems a curious compliment to one's guest to say, "We have entertained other people and they were just as bad as you."Certainly we shall not affect the internal situation in Russia by anything we say in this House. However, expressions of our opinion may affect Russia's treatment of her satellites—Poland, Czechoslovakia and Hungary. This is the point when we criticise Portugal's colonial policy as we criticise Russia's colonial policy when Russia suppresses Poles, Czechs or Hungarians.
I turn to the alleged massacre. Massacres have been reported from abroad in the past, and there is a great conflict of evidence. There was once a dispute between Disraeli and Gladstone about the Bulgarian atrocities. I would not think that the mantle of Midlothian has descended on the shoulders of the Leader of the Opposition. 1 would, however, go along with him to this extent. I do not think one can dismiss the testimony, as one understands it, of a number of Catholic priests. On the other hand, this massacre took place at a place which it is impossible to identify on a map and the evidence from the lawyer's point of view is hearsay upon hearsay. It was published by a reputable newspaper no doubt with the best of motives, but it comes down to the old lawyer's quip that the basic argument is that it is mere hearsay evidence, but very powerful.
What am I to do in those circumstances? My judgment is suspended on this matter. I believe that the old Scots verdict of "not proven" would most fit this case. Inevitably, in the system that we operate in this country we are crushed into voting one way or the other. Frankly, I do not feel justified in voting on either side tonight, because my belief is suspended, as is my vote. I wish, however,

to record one other fact, and that is that I regard this whole matter as a wildly inappropriate matter for the House of Commons.

5.40 p.m.

Mr. Andrew Faulds: I wish to make only a brief intervention in this debate on the visit of Dr. Caetano, and I wish to stress only two aspects of it.
There has been some play on the Tory benches and in the popular appraisal of the reports that Father Hastings has broadcast to the world that it is only missionaries who are spreading these stories of massacre in Portuguese territories and that the missionaries concerned are suspect because they are supporters of Frelimo. There is only one direct riposte to that: that the poor Africans at the receiving end of the civilising attentions of the Portuguese in the territories are simply peasants whose existence is important to nobody except the peasants themselves, perhaps incidentally to God, and, strangely enough, through their concern for the spiritual importance of such lives, to the missionaries who labour unrecognised and unrewarded in the interests of such unimportant people as these peasants.
This is the very reason why these reports from Mozambique—and, indeed, scattered over the years, from Angola and Portuguese Guinea—have to be believed. The missionaries have no other concern in these territories than—misguidedly or not—according to their lights the dissemination of the Gospel of Christ and also of the truth about Portuguese actions in trying to contain the growth of African nationalism in these territories.
Then we have the work of such reporters—it is a pity to waste the time of the House on them, but this is the only opportunity we get to deal with the irresponsibility of the reporting of some sections of the British Press—as Bruce Loudon of the Sunday Telegraph, who try to discredit the heartfelt cries of the Spanish priests by the sort of irresponsible reporting that he indulged in from a point "south of Tete in Mozambique"․"setting the scene", of course. One can only disregard that report for the juvenile journalism that it is.
The very phrases of Loudon's report reek of the dead Kiplingesque attitudes


of Imperial yesteryears. [An HON. MEMBER: "Kipling-what?"] If hon. Members have not heard of Kipling, I shall recite some in the bar, later. I quote from Loudon's report:
I rose at dawn yesterday, the fifth day of a search that has taken me through many thousands of miles of bush country…. Carefully we plotted co-ordinates…. I went at some personal risk on foot to an abandoned settlement….
This was to set the scene for this great adventure in finding out the truth. He then says:
I was even reduced to digging into the earth in search of bullet shells and studying the bark of surrounding trees for signs of bullet marks.
Great stuff for a boy scout! I prefer the dreadful and detailed reportage of the Spanish priests to that piece of Boy's Own story-telling.

Sir J. Rodgers: Where is the evidence that they were there?

Mr. Faulds: The Spanish priests were there. Does the House doubt that the Burgos Fathers were in Mozambique?

Mr. R. T. Paget: The unfortunate thing is that the two priests on whose story this is all based were in gaol at the time and could not have been there.

Mr. Faulds: If my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) had been listening, he would have gathered that I was talking about not Wiriyamu but a series of atrocities—and those priests were witnesses to some of them. If my hon. and learned Friend will have the patience to listen, I shall come to one incident that they witnessed.
I prefer the dreadful and detailed reporting of priests to the Boy's Own story-telling of this Woodland Patrol writer which appeared in the Sunday Telegraph. What may he termed the innocence of this journalistic nincompoop perhaps is motivated by lack of concern or perhaps the perks of reporting for a quality newspaper. [Interruption.] There are perks for reporting quality newspaper stuff even when it involves this kind of rubbish. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Sunday Times"?] We are discussing reports in the Sunday Telegraph. This 'fellow was foolish enough to mention that from a point

south of Tete he went "under military escort", as if expecting the Portuguese military authorities to lead him obligingly to the spot of any of these massacres. One wonders, apart from his free use of words like "co-ordinates", whether this fellow can box a compass, such is his scanty knowledge of the territory.
He then talks of the Roman Catholic bishop of Tete, Don Cesar Augusto, who has shamed his cloth by his lack of courage in not abhoring these atrocities and by abandoning his priests in their exposed position and their reportage of them. All of this will come out, should some hon. Members think otherwise. Hon. Members will see how foolish they were to scoff this afternoon.
Mr. Loudon says of the bishop in his report:
He had no telephone, but he made his position clear to a visitor whom he authorised to make known to me his rejection of the way in which the informants in Madrid had bandied his name about in support of their case.
Apparently, this courageous spiritual leader does not approve of such atrocity stories leaking out from under his robes

Mr. Patrick Wall: That is extremely offensive.

Mr. Faulds: I am being offensive because a man in his position as a spiritual leader has a Christian duty to speak out against such massacres. If he fails to do so, then he fails his calling.

Mr. Wall: Does the hon. Gentleman recall that the bishop came into this when it was alleged in the second statement that he had flown over the area and told the governor of the province that unless he did something about burying the bodies he would take a spade and do it himself? He flatly denied this and said he was not even in Tete at the time.

Mr. Faulds: I realise he was not there. He was in retreat on the coast of Mozambique resting from his spiritual labours while these reports were going unnoticed by him, his first duty being to report them.
I dwell on this journalistic nonsense simply to underline the authenticity, the credibility and the Christian responsibility of the persecuted priests who cared


enough, as the bishop did not, to publicise these appalling stories of Portuguese atrocities. When it comes to credibility I place more emphasis on such missionary reports than I do on the colonial lies and misrepresentations of the Portuguese authorities in Mozambique, and of the excuses made by some Government supporters.
I beg leave to doubt even the honoured Portuguese army, with which we have had such long-standing connections and whose head we received, misguidedly, in Britain yesterday.
The second point I want to make is that it is not only Portuguese atrocities in Mozambique but, again from well authenticated reports from many sources, most of them religious, the actions of our kith and kin in Southern Rhodesia, whom some Government supporters hold so dear. The appalling repression of the Portuguese authorities has been backed up by the illegal régime and its leaders in Southern Rhodesia to the extent that they have mounted punitive attacks on villagers in neighbouring Mozambique whose main offence was that they were foolhardy enough not to accept the Portuguese directions to withdraw from their village life to the communal round-up of Portuguese fortified settlements.
Were all those children of a few months and all those teenagers detailed in the Spanish priests' reports Frelimo terrorists? Were all the women murdered in these atrocities—those who were pregnant and those perhaps fortunate enough not to be—also Frelimo terrorists? I sometimes wonder whether those Government supporters who back our so. called kith and kin in Rhodesia realise what they are backing. Do they condone Rhodesian raids into Mozambique, if these are proved to be true? Do they make excuses for these raids? Do they support the sadistic pleasure with which some colonial types—we have all met them—indulge their strange proclivities in this sort of nigger-bashing?

Sir J. Rodgers: Does the hon. Gentleman support the Tanzanian forays into Mozambique?

Mr. Faulds: The hon. Gentleman asks a direct question, and I shall give a direct answer. If those forays are in support of African nationalist movements,

I support them 150 per cent. Let us have no misunderstanding about that.

Mr. Wall: Including attacks on missions?

Mr. Faulds: Unfortunate things happen in war, including attacks on missions, but not this sort of genocidal activity which the Portuguese authorities have been up to in East Africa.
Do not Conservative Members who support Smith agree that in the whole of Africa and in the whole of the world support for such a régime and for such murderous practices stains the name of Britain and immensely lessens whatever influence we can play in the rapidly changing balance of power and the rising importance of some of the developing nations? Do they really wish us to become a sort of floating Portugal, known only for its economic impotence and the supporting of colonial attitudes which have withered and died everywhere else in the world? Is this the sort of Britain we want to see?
In terms of the Southern Rhodesian involvement in these matters, we in this House are responsible, because it was our responsibility to root out the illegal régime. It was our responsibility to introduce into Southern Africa some of the values we cherish so highly at home. We have failed to do that. What happened in Southern Rhodesia was the fault of the Labour Government, I admit. At the time I was not exactly kind in my references to the lack of activity. But it was passed on by our democratic processes to the Conservative Government, and this Government now compound the offence by the incredible insensitivity of inviting Premier Caetano to this country, to laud him with the honours of an official visit, representing as he does a régime which is guilty of mass murders in Africa and of massive political repression in its home territory of Portugal.
I am horrified that Government supporters do not share my feeling. I am appalled that any British Government in the latter half of the 20th century should have been crassly unaware—and I direct this particularly at the right hon. Member for whom I have some regard except in matters of this kind—of the damage that such an invitation and such a visitor could do and has done to the image of


Britain as a country devoted to the democratic ideal and, in its own case, highly responsible in getting rid of the vestiges of empire.

5.53 p.m.

Sir Frederic Bennett: I wish to make two comments on the speech of the hon. Member for Smethwick (Mr. Faulds). I felt it was pretty rich that he complained about theatrical journalism and then engaged in a verbal torrent to an extent to which the Sunday Telegraph did not come near. Having begun his remarks by admitting that his attitude was that these accusations were not proven, he based every statement and every rhetorical question on the supposition that they were.

Mr. Faulds: I accept them.

Sir F. Bennett: We must have some sense of logic. The hon. Gentleman's complaint against the unfortunate bishop appears to be that he should not have been on the coast when he was but, instead, in a non-existent place waiting for a hypothetical massacre to occur. That seems to be placing a fairly high duty upon the cloth.
I turn to the more important speech by the Leader of the Opposition—although in many ways it was more offensive than the farrago of nonsense to which we have just been treated. The Leader of the Opposition taunted the Prime Minister on the basis that on this occasion he wished only to show how objective he was, that he could bellow with rage about the alleged atrocities in Africa. I confess that the right hon. Gentleman is not much of an advocate for bellowing with rage in an objective way, judging from photographs which I have seen of him sipping imported vodka with his hosts in Czechoslovakia. Bellowing with rage is not the description that I should apply to the right hon. Gentleman's complexion as it appears in those photographs.
When challenged on the question why he did not go to Mozambique to see for himself, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that if he did so he would be all the while under military control. I shall come to that point in a moment, but I would not, on other grounds, advise

him to go there for the time being. If the right hon. Gentleman cares to look at photographs in our newspapers, and at other photographs that will be forthcoming, he will see that there was a substantial demonstration in Lourenco Marques yesterday, made up of between 40,000 and 50,000 people, 80 or 90 per cent. of whom were black, incidentally. The placards that they carried were not in any way complimentary to the Leader of the Opposition. In fact, the wording on one of them was so offensive that the newspaper concerned declined to publish it. It was a word of two syllables and was extremely coarse in its nature.
The Leader of the Opposition would not have a very good time in Lourenco Marques if he went there at the moment. But it is a gross perversion of the truth to say that he would be able to go there only under military control. I can think of at least 12 Opposition hon. Members who have been to Mozambique and Angola as guests of the Portuguese Government to see the situation for themselves. In many respects they have come back to this House changed men. It would not be right for me to name them, because they are having an unpleasant enough time from their own bosses without my adding to their worries. But I mention one of them because he happens to be one of the inquisitors visiting the wrath of the Labour Party upon them if they choose to go to any function. I refer, of course, to the Opposition Chief Whip—the right hon. Member for Bermondsey (Mr. Mellish)—who had a pretty good time there. He left his family in Portugal and went on to Mozambique as a guest of the Portuguese Government, where he saw the situation for himself. I have no objection to his having gone, but I only wish that the right hon. Gentleman could make a contribution to this debate and say whether he was entirely under military control. He might also attempt to justify the attitude which says that it is all right for a right hon. Member of this House to visit Mozambique but wrong for an hon. Member to go to a dinner at Greenwich. It is difficult to tie the two attitudes together—

Mr. James Johnson: Will the hon. Gentleman give way?

Sir F. Bennett: I do not think that I had better give way. We have only a limited time for this debate. I shall continue with my speech, if I may, because I am still dealing with the remarks that we heard earlier today from the Leader of the Opposition.
The right hon. Gentleman said that British de-colonisation, contrary to what the Portuguese were trying to do, had led to the creation and maintenance of stable legislatures and democratic government in Africa. I wish I knew to which countries in Africa the right hon. Gentleman was referring. It is a very short list, and it grows shorter every day. If the right hon. Gentleman seriously suggests that British de-colonisation in Africa has led to parliamentary democracy, he is even more uninformed than his most ardent critics think.
One of my hon. Friends said that the argument of double standards was not a useful one to adopt. It may not be in the context of the recipient of our hospitality, but it is extremely relevant in judging the genuineness of the Opposition's indignation. One hon. Member after another, including the Leader of the Opposition, has admitted that the alleged crimes are not proven. However, the right hon. Gentleman went on to say that until they were proven one way or the other we should not invite the leader of a Government to come to this country as an official guest.
It is less than a couple of weeks ago that I heard the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South-East (Mr. Callaghan), who, unfortunately, is not here today, press the Government hard to invite Mr. Brezhnev to come here on an official Government or State visit, whatever the correct description might be. Surely no one doubts whether the crimes in his case are proven. In the case of the invasion of Czechoslovakia, is the crime proven or non-proven? Do we need an international investigation to know whether that took place?
Did the repression of the East German workers, when they revolted a few years ago, take place, or is it still non-proven? Is the oppression of the Jews, which is going on now, proven or non-proven?
The killings at the Berlin Wall, preventing people getting out of the Marxist

paradise into the capitalist hell, have gone on month after month, year after year. Only recently, soldiers who shot down women and children who were attempting to get over the wall were decorated for their gallantry. We did not have an emergency debate at that time.
Therefore, we can at once claim that when some of my hon. Friends and I put down a motion alleging double standards against the Leader of the Opposition and some of his colleagues we were more than amply justified. Indeed, every section of public opinion, including many hon. Gentlemen opposite, know that what I say is absolutely true.
Labour spokesmen have said, "We used to be friendly with the Portuguese, but we would not be friendly with them nowadays." Two attitudes have been displayed by the Opposition. There are those on the back benches who have said, "We never liked our Government being friendly with the Portuguese anyhow." At least they are consistent in their double standards. But then there is the official line which seems to be that things have got worse and that whatever a Labour Government may have tolerated this no longer applies.
I do not think that any of them, let alone not having taken the opportunity to study the situation on the spot, have taken the trouble to study the constitutional reforms that are taking place every month in Portugese African provinces. How many hon. Gentlemen have bothered to read about the percentage of ordinary African voters in the recent elections, about the size of the poll when it took place, about the registration and how it took place, and about the powers of those parliaments. I am willing to wager that not one hon. Gentleman has carefully worked out what those elections have achieved. To say that the situation in Portuguese provinces is more repressive now than it was 10 years ago is totally and absolutely untrue. The only thing that can be said is that certain forces, to which my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) referred, are determined to make sure that law and order and decency do not obtain in Africa. Such elements have increased their efforts. That is the only change. Those who wish to subvert decency and


law and order are stronger than they ever were.
The Leader of the Opposition and other hon. Gentlemen opposite have tried to excuse their double standards by saying, "It is all right to insult your friends provided they are small enough. You must not upset the American Government. You must be statesmanlike over My Lai, but when it comes to a little country which is also your friend, then, boys, it is time to have your fun with insults." The argument is completely fatuous. They then say, "You must always be nice and have different standards and criteria for exchange of views, courtesies and visits with hostile powers, provided they are sufficiently large." That is the paradox to which we have been subjected today.
What we have witnessed in the last week with the Leader of the Opposition—I am not here referring to some of his outside left, to whom I have granted the right of consistency, though not of logic—is the old practice, when faced with internal troubles within the Labour Party, of seeking to divert attention to some bogus external matter. We are seeing our friendship with the Portuguese people being traded against the bargain of the non-nationalisation of 25 large companies.

6.5 p.m.

Mr. Guy Barnett: I shall not attempt to answer the complex moral arguments that have been pursued by the hon. Member for Torquay (Sir F. Bennett).
As my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said, we regard this as a serious debate, which inevitably has been coloured by emotion. I think there are two reasons for that. The first is the visit of Dr. Caetano himself and the second is the reported massacres.
I think that the least some 11.-in. Gentlemen opposite can do is to respect the fact that there are in this House and in the country at large a great number of people who find the Portuguese régime repugnant—[HoN. MEMBERS: "Nonsense."]—it is not nonsense—and find the form of colonial rule pursued by Portugal in Africa utterly inhuman. These views, whether right or wrong, are sincerely held by thousands, if not millions, of people in this country.
If hon. Gentlemen opposite want evidence of that, they need only to have been present in the streets of London during the demonstration that took place on Sunday afternoon. [Interruption.] I know that some hon. Gentlemen opposite will apply any adjective they please. They can describe it as Marxist, Communist, or anything they like. If that is the way they wish to describe me because I took part in that demonstration, they are entitled to do so. But they are not entitled to doubt the sincerity of large numbers of people in this country who feel deeply hostile to everything for which Portugal stands and are insulted by the visit that is now taking place.
Some weeks ago, long before anybody had heard the name Wiriyamu, I received an invitation from the Prime Minister to attend a dinner at the Royal Naval College, Greenwich, to be held in honour of Dr. Caetano. I replied to it as politely as I could, but I could not find it in me to honour that man. That is a different situation from the one to which the hon. Member for Torquay was referring.
Of course we need to talk to the Portuguese, the Russians, the Chinese or anybody else, but that is quite different from inviting Dr. Caetano to visit this country, honouring him and celebrating a so-called alliance that has existed over many years. It is that to which we object. That is why we believe it is a provocation to the British people.
During the demonstration on Sunday afternoon and the one that took place in my constituency last night, people behaved with an enormous degree of restraint and were extremely peaceful. There was a fine demonstration on Sunday afternoon. The demonstration that took place in my constituency last night was marred by a small disturbance, but nothing more than that. Indeed, 99·9 per cent. of the people demonstrated peacefully against something that they found abhorrent.
We are supposed to be debating Dr. Caetano's visit and its consequences. In this respect I think that someone ought to mention the strain that this visit has put upon the Metropolitan Police. That aspect has not so far been mentioned. The visit has two consequences. The first is the provocation that it has aroused among the British people and the second


is that, because of that provocation, many hundreds of policemen have had their leave stopped to control crowds upset by the visit. However, in view of the peacefulness of the crowds who have demonstrated against the visit, I think that the police have over-reacted. For example, I understand from the tape today that about 50 people demonstrated outside the Mansion House and that there were 100 policemen there—two policemen per demonstrator—eight of whom were on horseback. I think it was an unnecessary step for the police to take. It could have the effect of provoking people who would otherwise wish to behave peacefully.

Mr. Jeffrey Archer: How can the police possibly know how many people are going to demonstrate?

Mr. Barnett: I have not spoken to the police, but I see no reason why they should not have maintained very much closer contact than they did with the responsible organisations which organised these demonstrations. The demonstration in Greenwich was organsied by the Greenwich Labour Party. It had no contact with the police prior to the demonstration, and the initiative that was taken came from the Greenwich Labour Party, and rightly so.
I do not blame the police. I recognise, as I am sure the hon. Gentleman does, the difficulties which they face in this kind of situation, but I hope that the Metropolitan Police have taken the message that these demonstrations, which are peaceful and responsible, are by people who feel sincerely and deeply that this visit is an utter mistake, that it is a disgrace that the Government allowed it to take place, that it is an insult to the British people, and that it misrepresents the views of many of them towards the kind of action that Portugal takes in Africa and the form of régime that she practices in her own country.

6.11 p.m.

Mr. Alan Haselhurst: It is undoubtedly the case that the alleged massacre has brought about this debate. There have been many previous opportunities for the Opposition to debate policy towards Portugal. There have been enough Supply Days in this Session, let alone in earlier ones, when

the kind of general expressions that we have heard today against Portugal's policies could have been voiced had it been thought that it was a sufficiently import. ant matter to debate in the House.

Mr. Judd: If the hon. Gentleman reads HANSARD of the defence debates earlier this year he will see that the Opposition Front Bench developed the argument about Portugal.

Mr. Haselhurst: It is, of course, the case that in general debates on defence points can be made about this, but we have today been led to believe that this is an extremely urgent matter and that it should be singled out for discussion. It has been singled out on this occasion, and one must assume that it is the alleged massacre that has caused that rather than any general feelings towards the Government of Portugal.
If it is more than the alleged massacre that has led to this debate, the Opposition must be asked why, when they were the Government, they took a different attitude towards the Portuguese Government and all their activities. It is reasonable for us to question why strenuous efforts were not made by the Labour Government to take Portugal out of the European Free Trade Area and out of NATO. From all the indignation that we have heard today, particularly from the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, one would have thought that no one could have been more strenuous than he was when he bore the responsibility for the conduct of affairs of the Government, in pushing to get rid of this supposedly obnoxious country from any association with which we were connected. But that is not what happened, and that is why hon. Members on the Government benches find it difficult to take from his lips the sort of remarks that we heard today.
The right hon. Gentleman having gone back as far as mentioning Portugal's mourning the death of Hitler—and this was mentioned also by the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd)—one would imagine that that had been rankling with him for some time. Why has it taken 28 years to come out in this fashion? If the right hon. Gentleman felt so strongly and deeply about the matter, one would have imagined that when he led the Government there would have


been far more action on his part against Portugal. One would have looked for six years during which there was a tale of embittered relations between this country and Portugal, but, on the whole, it seems that the right hon. Gentleman was in fairly harmonious relations with the Government of that country. It is, therefore, difficult for the right hon. Gentleman to attack the present Government for wanting to continue those harmonious relations.
If the occasion of today's debate springs entirely from the alleged massacre, one is surely permitted to say that it is a somewhat risky foundation for a wholesale condemnation of the Government's policy. It seems to me that that is rushing to judgment in the most irresponsible way. It is easy for Opposition Members to point a finger of fun at some of my hon. Friends who they think are overenthusiastic to defend the Government of Portugal, but, looking at the matter from this side of the House, it is possible to see a good deal of enthusiasm on the Opposition benches for rushing in to condemn Portugal. I do not see why the Conservative benches should be singled out for criticism in that way.
The justification for continuing to talk to the Portuguese Government—I do not admire that Government's policies within their own country nor agree with their policies in Africa—is the general one for maintaining talks with other nations. The world has reached the stage when it is generally recognised that one has to talk to people, even those whom one does not like in everything they do, because we now conduct the relations of the world in a peaceful manner. We are often urged in many disputes to promote talks. The Opposition often urge the Government to intervene in disputes of one kind and another in order to promote a reconciliation. I do not see why Portugal should be excluded, as it were, from a general policy of reconciliation, talk and negotiation.
British interests cause us to deal with all kinds of régimes which in many cases do not please us in any way. Geographically speaking, Portugal is a member of the European family, and surely we are entitled to hope that by exercising constant pressure on her we may one day be able to bring her more into the comity of European nations. Portugal is a trad-

ing partner whom we should not wish to lose, and in addition she is an ally in NATO.
Whilst we have to recognise, and I do, the question of Britain's standing in the world being affected by our continuing relationship with Portugal, we have also to recognise and put in counterbalance the protection of British interests in the world. From time to time that leads us into judgment where we say that, although we do not altogether rejoice in having to go along with certain things, it is in the interests of Britain to do so, and it is humbug for the Opposition to say that we can pick and choose as freely as they seem to want to do and then try to make out that hon. Members on this side of the House are condoning and supporting Fascism merely because we are prepared to talk to a country such as Portugal.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition referred to British interests. He said that the highest need of Britain was to establish a cordon sanitaire around the Portuguese territories in South Africa. That was an important policy announcement, and I shall be interested to hear more about how that will affect the policy of any future Labour Government towards South Africa, because in any cordon sanitaire the rôle of South Africa is important. Are we being invited in this general condemnation of Portugal to include a general condemnation of South Africa, and is it being said that a future Labour Government will sever relations not only with Portugal but with South Africa? If so, that stands in stark contrast to what the Labour Government did, and that is why we on these benches find the attitude of the Opposition Front Bench today difficult to take.
The question has been asked whether a visit at this time is something that should be contemplated, even though it may be accepted that there may be a continuing diplomatic dialogue. It would be unfortunate in its effects in another way were the visit to be cancelled on the basis of an unproven case that has arisen recently. We are talking not about a general condemnation of Portugal but about the recent allegation of a massacre. To cancel the visit on that basis does not seem a reasonable way for one State to act in relation to another.
I do not believe that it is right for the Opposition to condemn the action of the Government, to try to pillory the Government for their action in continuing the visit of Dr. Caetano on the extremely flimsy basis that they have done and a basis that is polluted by their own behaviour when in Government.

6.20 p.m.

Mr. Peter Archer: It has been an argument running repeatedly through the contributions from the Government side of the House, and repeated again by the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich (Mr. Haselhurst), that it is wrong to condemn tyranny on one occasion if one has not condemned it on a different occasion; that one should not condemn tyranny practised by one group of people if one does not condemn it when practised by another group of people; that one should remain silent this time because one remained silent last time; and so the condonation of tyranny escalates.
As I understand the argument of hon. Members on the Government side of the House, it is that the Right will remain silent about tyranny from the Right, the Left will remain silent about tyranny from the Left, and that each will adopt the other's precedent. So the world will become safe for persecution. Perhaps it is time it was said that it is no justification for the conduct of one tyrant that the world contains other tyrants.
I say to the hon. Member for Middleton and Prestwich that the occasion for this debate is not necessarily a particular massacre. It is the visit of the Portuguese dictator and the according to him of the adulation due to an old and valued ally. I accept what the hon. Member said about the debate ranging wider than the reports of a particular massacre on one occasion, and I intervene quickly to make only one point.
There has been a proposal by the Portuguese Government to investigate the reports of what is alleged to have taken place. Perhaps that should be judged in the light of the other judicial investigations which we have seen emanate from the Portuguese Government, because the outstanding fact is

that, whatever atrocities might have been perpetrated on one occasion, they are practised regularly by the Portuguese Government in Portugal on the Portuguese people.
Amnesty International has produced a report about Mozambique, which my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition quoted this afternoon. I should declare my interest. I have the honour to be the chairman of the British section of Amnesty International. On the files of Amnesty there is further very disturbing information about prison conditions in the very prison where the Catholic priests are at present detained. But that is not what I rose to say, and I do not propose to become embroiled in that.
There are many other well-documented cases in the files of Amnesty of courageous people in Portugal itself who have ventured to criticise the Portuguese Government's policy in Africa and elsewhere and, in consequence, have spent years in prison, separated from their families, their careers in ruins and their health broken down. One could mention people such as Jose Soares, a young Portuguese citizen of 23, who was arrested on 1st July 1971 for being a member of the Communist Party.
That invites two comments. First, I have examined all the details that I can get of his case. I have seen no evidence that he was a member of the Communist Party. Certainly no such evidence was produced at his trial. But, secondly, a Government who can remain in power only by making membership of opposition parties a criminal offence is not a Government who have very much confidence in the support of their people.
From July until September 1971 this young man was interrogated for a total of 820 hours. He was kept without sleep repeatedly, for periods of up to six days at a time. He was beaten. He underwent a number of tortures. He was not tried until April 1973, after 22 months in prison. He was sentenced to three and a half years' imprisonment and to the loss of political rights for nine years.
The United Kingdom Government accept—the present Government have accepted it and have repeated this in the House—that, where there is a consistent pattern of violation of human rights, a


Government are in breach of their international obligations under the United Nations Charter, and that becomes the legitimate concern of the whole international community. There are many victims of tyranny in many countries who, if that were not so, would have no one to speak for them and no hope for the future.
The reports—I stress the word "reports"—of what has happened in Mozambique, irrespective of whether they are subsequently authenticated, are more than adequate reason why this country should make known to the Portuguese Government our concern about their policies, as the rest of the world has done. Events in Portugal itself are an additional reason why the Portuguese dictator, even if he is accepted diplomatically—I appreciate that this happens from time to time—should not be accorded the status of an old and valued ally. But that is not a rejection of the Portuguese people. It is support for those who, in spite of persecution and torture, continue to protest in Portugal. Perhaps the House can make this occasion a reminder of the victims of oppression there.

6.25 p.m.

Mr. David Waddington: I have learned a lot during the last week here in Parliament. When I came to the House five years ago I never thought I would see a Leader of the Opposition deliberately set out to cause trouble during the visit of a Prime Minister of a friendly country. I never thought I would see a party leader accept as gospel a newspaper report involving an attack on the honesty and integrity of a friendly nation without bothering for one moment to see whether there was any evidence to support the attack that was being made.
I never thought I would see such a man have the neck to suggest that it was for the other country to prove that the report was untrue and not for the writers of the report to prove that it was true. I never thought I would see a newspaper such as The Times publish such a report without making the slightest attempt to check the reliability of the source or to look for supporting evidence.
It is a shocking tale, and I hope that it will never be repeated.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. Robert Hughes: When reports were coming from Nazi Germany prior to the last World War, there were some people from this country who went there and returned and told us that the monstrous lies that were being told about Hitler and the kind of atrocities which later proved to be true were absolute nonsense and that we should be ashamed of ourselves for daring to criticise someone who was standing against the great oppression of Communism.
When reports were coming from Algeria of the French atrocities and torture there, we were again told that they were utter nonsense and all Communist propaganda. They later proved to be true.
When we were told about atrocities committed in South Vietnam, at My Lai and elsewhere, we were told that these were also fabrications of the Communist Party and were untrue and that we should not believe them. They were later proved to be true.
The question has been asked—I have seen it in the Press—why is it that Portugal was tried, found guilty and condemned without the matter having been properly checked? The reason is that evidence has been coming through for the past 10 years of atrocities such as these in Mozambique, Angola and Guinea-Bissau. A well-documented United Nations report tells of herbicides being used in the liberated areas and of napalm being used there. We know also that there is very strong foundation for these recent reports.
We have been asked why it is that we should be concerned at this particular time with these reports. It is because Portugal is not only our oldest ally but one of our allies in NATO. There are well-documented reports of NATO weapons turning up in Mozambique and Portugal's other colonial territories. When protests were made to West Germany about German-made fighters being used in Mozambique, Angola and Guinea-Bissau, we were told that these aeroplanes had been sold purely for use by Portugal for defence within NATO. Then the Portuguese said that to them the overseas territories were not colonies but part of Portugal.
It is because we are conniving at the kind of colonial war that Portugal is conducting in Africa that we protest. We protest because we know that what is at stake is not simply an alliance but the economics of Portugal and, to some extent, those of this country.
The war in the Portuguese colonies is not about freedom. It is about the economic asset that Portugal hopes to get from those territories. The Prime Minister coined the phrase about the Lonrho affair and the Cayman Islands that it was the unacceptable and unpleasant face of capitalism. The unacceptable face, the unpleasant face, and the brutal face of capitalism is that carried out by Portugal in these three territories. The sooner it is ended the better. That is why we should say now to the Prime Minister of Portugal, through the acolytes who sit opposite, "Go home", and let us fight for the people of these territories.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Michael Foot: We believe that the real origin of the debate is the Foreign Secretary's decision and that of the Government to extend an invitation to Dr. Caetano. We believe that the question is one which it was certainly right to raise in the House. Indeed, it was raised by this side long before the news was made public of the allegations about the massacres.
The National Executive of the Labour Party made a protest against the visit of the Duke of Edinburgh to Lisbon and the Government's invitation immediately the news became public. We protested then. We have protested in the debates we have had on foreign debates since. We had a vote at the end of one of those debates. As we explained then, one reason why we voted on that earlier occasion was this visit.
However, because of its intrinsic interest and seriousness, because of the timing, and because of the international concern which has been aroused, it is natural that a part of the debate turns on the question about the allegations of the massacres. Anyone is bound to agree, as I acknowledge, that if absolute certainty is to be established about the allegations which were published in The Times that certainty cannot rest solely on the information we have received so far. That

is why The Times itself, when it published the information, called for some inquiry to try to establish whether it was justified in publishing the facts or whether the facts were true.
That is why I interrupted the Foreign Secretary to ask him what the Government's view was and what they had done to try to ensure that there should be a proper inquiry into these allegations. The right hon. Gentleman's reply on this important aspect, which is especially important to those who say that we are here to discuss the allegations about the massacres, has so far been extremely unsatisfactory. He has not given us the slightest indication of what he has said to Dr. Caetano or the Portuguese demanding or even asking for any kind of inquiry.
It is especially deplorable that the Foreign Secretary has not done so in the light of his admitted reply to my right hon. Friend and in view of all the other comparisons to which reference was made, in particular My Lai. In that case there was a court-martial, an inquiry, and an investigation. I do not accept many of the things that happen in the United States, nor do I accept its legal system, but at least those who were alarmed and concerned throughout the world about the events that happened at My Lai had the satisfaction and the knowledge that there would be some investigation because of the freedom that exists to demand such an inquiry and such a settlement of the matter in the courts, where I think the matter was settled.
It is very different with the Portuguese Government. I do not accept any investigation by the Portuguese Government as being satisfactory in this state of affairs, partly for reasons that have already been given. I do not accept it because two of the leading priests in the area who made allegations, not about this matter only but about other massacres, were put in prison for it and are still in prison untried. We were told that they are to be brought to trial in August or September. I do not know what the Foreign Secretary will say to us about that. I should like to see a much more important body inquiring into the matter—

Sir J. Rodgers: Surely not the World Council of Churches, as suggested by the Leader of the Opposition. That could hardly be called impartial.

Mr. Foot: What about a sub-committee of the United Nations?

Mr. Ernle Money: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Portuguese Government have throughout made it clear that Dr. Waldheim will be welcome in Mozambique or Angola at any time he is prepared to go?

Mr. Foot: The Portuguese Government may be saying that now—[Interruption.] The hon. Gentleman should listen for a moment. If the Portuguese Government were to allow a sub-committee of the United Nations to go into Mozambique, it would be very different from the procedure which was followed in Angola, where demands were made that an international sub-committee of the United Nations should go there to investigate. Do hon. Members opposite think that that is such a bad or improper demand?

Mr. Neave: It should be a request.

Mr. Foot: I hope that the Government will make a request. Why have they not made a request? At the time of the Angola atrocities in 1960 and 1961, to which the hon. Member for Chigwell (Mr. Biggs-Davison) referred in a rather different sense, the Foreign Secretary, who happened to be the Foreign Secretary at that time also, demanded that a subcommittee of the United Nations should be sent there. The Prime Minister made that demand, too. Why have they not demanded it on this occasion? They have had plenty of time to talk about the matter with Dr. Caetano over the soup or the fish. Why did they not ask him "When are we going to have a proper investigation into these allegations of massacre to establish what are the facts?"

Mr. Biggs-Davison: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the Portuguese authorities repeatedly invite the United Nations Secretary-General to visit these territories and that he constantly refuses?

Mr. Foot: That is a very different matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows,

and it is a very different demand from what the Government themselves demanded in the Angola case. I am first asking whether the Government have made the same demand about these allegations as they made in the Angola case. If they dispute what I am saying, they can look up the debate, in which the Prime Minister himself argued for such an investigation in the Angola case. If they have not done this, will they say why they have not done so and when they will make the demand?

Mr. Paget: Is not the right tribunal a British jury? The Times has made the allegations. I understand that writs will be issued by those whom it has libelled. Then let The Times prove it.

Mr. Foot: My hon. and learned Friend will see, if he will look back at those debates about Angola, that on that occasion he was demanding the kind of debate that we are now having and supporting the demand for the form of inquiry which we now seek—that is, a proper international inquiry. The Government themselves, particularly if they say that these most serious charges against our ally are not proven, should be the first to make that demand.
I know that some hon. Members in this debate have tried to turn the whole thing upside down. One of the reasons why The Times was justified in publishing these reports is the whole long history of atrocities of this sort that have gone on in Angola, Mozambique and the other territories. But some Conservative Members have tried to convert the situation by saying that we are faced with the labyrinthine efforts of a sinister bunch of malignant missionaries to defame the God-fearing, near-pacifist, single-minded Fathers of the Portuguese people. That is how they try to represent the whole business. Some Conservatives and some people outside, as we have seen during this controversy, would rush to the defence of the forces of law and order in whatever guise they might appear. I can imagine how deadly might have been some of the editorials which would have appeared in the Daily Telegraph in defence of King Herod. It is our business, and it always has been in this House, to distinguish on these matters.
I come therefore to the fundamental reasons why we are so bitterly opposed to the visit. They are interlocking reasons, not to be torn one from the other. The first is that Portugal is a Fascist State, and Dr. Caetano knows that as well as anybody. He joined the Fascist movement in Portugal at the earliest possible moment. No doubt he was there when they flew the flag at half mast in Lisbon because of the death of Hitler. Perhaps there is a case for having him here in 1973, but there was not in 1943. It would not have been easy for him to come in 1940, when he was visiting Mussolini. That is another matter which the Foreign Secretary might care to deal with.
What happens in the Portuguese colonial territories is intimately tied up with what happens on the Portuguese mainland. That is why Portugal must have conscription for four years in order to maintain a régime of oppression. If the Portuguese territories were ruled in the beneficent manner described by some of Dr. Caetano's friends on the Government benches, Portugal would not need to have the largest European army permanently stationed in these territories merely to win the consent of the people.
The second interlocking reason is that Portugal is engaged in three bloody colonial wars. It has been engaged in them for years. I shall deal in a moment with excuses put forward by Conservatives for the Portuguese position.
The third reason is that the same Portuguese Government are also engaged in attempting to frustrate British policy in Africa. One of the most important actions that a British Government can take at the United Nations is to support a mandatory motion. There is a mandatory motion demanding sanctions against Rhodesia. Portugal is one of the countries which in defiance of their undertakings under the United Nations Charter are refusing to carry out that policy and are thereby frustrating the policy of the British Government. Perhaps the British Government do not care about that action.

Mr. Michael McNair-Wilson: (Waltham-stow, East) rose—

Mr. Foot: I cannot give way; I have only a minute or two left.
The Foreign Secretary must make his views clear when he replies. The Patronage Secretary has not been here to hear the debate and now he has come in to mutter. He has missed a fine display from what appears to be the Portuguese Party on the Conservative benches. We have heard three or four Conservative Members—the hon. Member for Clitheroe (Mr. David Walder) was an honorable exception—including the hon. Member for Chigwell and the hon. Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings), defending Portuguese policy to the limit. The Foreign Secretary had now better say whether he agrees with them.
I know the views of the hon. Member for Chigwell. He thinks that Portuguese policy in Africa is correct. Portugal's Colonial Act specifically declares that it is
the duty of the Portuguese nation to fulfil their historic function of possessing and colonising overseas dominions and of civilising the native population inhabiting them.
That is the act under which the Portuguese are operating.

Mr. Hastings: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foot: I shall not give way. The hon. Member has made his speech. He has spoken like a second-rate South African policeman. [Interruption.]

Mr. Hastings: rose—

Mr. Foot: What we are trying—

Mr. Speaker: Order.

Mr. Foot: We are trying to discover—

Mr. Hastings: rose—

Hon. Members: Give way.

Mr. Speaker: Order. It is clear that the hon. Member is not giving way.

Mr. Foot: Very well, I give way.

Mr. Hastings: I do not know whether what the hon. Member said is parliamentary language—[Interruption.]—but in my Experience if one hon. Member makes that sort of attack on another he should have the guts to give way.

Mr. Foot: The reason I used the language I did was that it is greatly damaging to the reputation of this country that racial tyranny should be defended in this House. In this debate we are trying to discover whether the Government will repudiate the speeches by the hon. Members for Mid-Bedfordshire and Chigwell and others. One of the reasons we have been so strongly opposed to the visit is precisely that—

An Hon. Member: Only since last week.

Mr. Foot: We have been opposed for much longer than that over this issue, as the hon. Member would have known had he been here. We strongly oppose the visit precisely because by inviting this Fascist leader, by wining and dining him and by applauding him, the Government have given the impression that they agree with his racialist policies.
There is a new situation, as the Foreign Secretary should have been able to discover. The wind of change has been blowing hard in spite of Conservative desires to reverse it. This country will have to take its stand much more clearly month by month and year by year on the whole question of what is to be our attitude to those who are struggling to be free in Southern Africa. [Interruption.] Some of those who have struggled and whom we honour most are themselves Portuguese; for example, Captain Galvao, and General Delgado, who was assassinated by the Portuguese secret police.
Therefore, I hope that the Foreign Secretary—[HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down!"]—will try to convey to Dr. Caetano what is his reputation and what is the feeling of civilised people in this country. He should remember that the cries coming from behind him in this debate have been the same cries of backing as he had in 1938 when he was returning from Munich. [Interruption.] Czechoslovakia has been mentioned. We on this side have a prouder record than the right hon. Gentleman can claim. If the Government will not do their duty to the people fighting for freedom all over Southern Africa, we on this side will.

6.50 p.m.

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Michael Foot) has considerable forensic arts, and he employed some of them this evening, but by any standards his attack on my hon. Friend the Member for Mid-Bedfordshire (Mr. Hastings) was disgraceful.
The hon. Gentleman's weakness tonight was obvious. Nearly every word of criticism which he dripped out with such relish was a dart directed right at his right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition, who had responsibility between 1964 and 1970—not that that worries the hon. Gentleman very much.
It was for that reason that I felt bound earlier today to question the right hon. Gentleman's standard of conduct in applying one rule to himself when in office and denying it to us now. The House cannot take seriously the motion that he so quickly slapped on the Order Paper without even a pretence of weighing the evidence. The Opposition might well listen to what the Lord Mayor said at lunch today.
The hon. Gentleman said that we should not make a fete of, and entertain, the head of a Fascist State. The Soviet Union is a Communist State. I should like to remind the Leader of the Opposition of what happened when Mr. Kosygin came here in 1967. I am not complaining; in fact I applaud it, but in view of his criticism I remind the right hon. Gentleman of what happened. There were two dinners at No. 10 Downing Street, for 70 people and 30 people respectively, a lunch at No. 10 for 36 people, a reception at Lancaster House for 1,000 people, dinner for 57 at Chequers, and dinner with the Queen.
Many people have talked—[Interruption.] Perhaps the hon. Gentleman will listen to this. I think that it will interest him particularly. Many hon. Members on either side of the House who have long ago committed themselves to certain points of view have mentioned certain people in support of their case. The hon. Member for York (Mr. Alexander W. Lyon) talked about Senhor dos Santos, who spent some time with the Leader of the Opposition in June, talking, no doubt, about the Frelimo side of the case. The hon. Gentleman said that Senhor dos


Santos was not a Communist. I do not know—but he was decorated with the Lenin Centenary Medal in 1971.
The Opposition Front Bench have given the debate a twist, which raises a very different issue: should Portugal be expelled from NATO? Our answer is quite unequivocal—that Portugal has a valuable part to play in the NATO alliance. The NATO alliance, including Portugal, is part of Britain's security, European security and Atlantic security. Her membership is necessary in terms of security.
If I had sympathy with one speech from the Opposition benches it was with the speech of the hon. Member for Portsmouth, West (Mr. Judd). If I thought that we were going into a situation in which we should be on the wrong side of a racial divide, I should be concerned. But we are doing nothing of the kind.
All sorts of things may be said about Portuguese metropolitan policy, of Portuguese policy in Africa, but the Portuguese are not racial. They may be colonialist, but they are not racial. I think that the hon. Gentleman underestimates the intelligence of the Africans. They know perfectly well that our friendship and alliance with Portugal are concerned with the defence of Britain, the Atlantic and the European area.

Mr. Judd: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that the illegal Smith régime in Rhodesia is racialist, that the South African Government are racialist, and that the Portuguese are absolutely committed to sustaining both?

Sir Alec Douglas-Home: The apartheid policy of South Africa is totally different from that in Portuguese territories. I have always contended—I do not think that the hon. Gentleman will dispute it—that Rhodesia is different, too, and that there is something to be saved there in terms of a multi-racial society. South Africa, therefore, is very different.

I have been struck by the whole trend of the debate on the Opposition benches, which has been out of touch with reality in the world of today. We are trying as hard as we can to get away from ideological barriers and to establish good relations between all States. That is what Helsinki was about. To say the least, it is anachronistic for the Opposition to fasten on the alleged errors of an old friend and a small nation at a time when we are trying to build co-operation with a whole series of nations more authoritarian and no less colonialist than Portugal.

The Leader of the Opposition suggested that Portugal should be thrown out of NATO. I hope that that is not a promise. At least, let me put it this way: I hope that it is the same sort of promise he gave that he would revise the Nassau Agreement. If the Opposition Front Bench are really serious in their proposition, they must be denounced before the whole country as careless of British security.

I believe, having listened to all but two of the speeches, that on all grounds, including the defence of Europe and the Atlantic, Portugal should remain a member of the alliance. It is totally irresponsible of the Labour Party, when in Opposition, to make promises, pledges or proposals that Portugal should be thrown out of the alliance. That is not what the Opposition in this Parliament should put forward—[Interruption.]—not when they should be responsible in international affairs.

But we can thank our lucky stars that it is now certain, after the speech of the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friend, and the right hon. Gentleman's television performance the other night, that never again will the public put the Leader of the Opposition within reach of international and defence policy.

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 271, Noes 299.

Division No. 204.]
AYES
[7.0 p.m


Abse, Leo
Atkinson, Norman
Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Bagier, Gordon A. T.
Bidwell, Sydney


Allen, Scholefield
Barnes, Michael
Bishop, E. S.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Barnett, Guy (Greenwich)
Blenkinsop, Arthur


Armstrong, Ernest
Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Booth, Albert


Ashley, Jack
Beaney, Alan
Boothroyd, Miss B. (West Brom.)


Ashton, Joe
Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur




Boyden, James (Bishop Auckland)
Horam, John
Oswald, Thomas


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Owen, Dr. David (Plymouth, Sutton)


Brown, Robert C. (N'c'tle-u-Tyne,W.)
Howell, Denis (Small Heath)
Padley, Walter


Brown, Hugh D. (G'gow, Provan)
Huckfield, Leslie
Palmer, Arthur


Brown, Ronald(Shoreditch &amp; F'bury)
Hughes, Rt. Hn. Cledwyn (Anglesey)
Pannell, Rt. Hn. Charles


Buchan, Norman
Hughes, Mark (Durham)
Pardoe, John


Buchanan, Richard (G'gow, Sp'burn)
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, John (Dagenham)


Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Parry, Robert (Liverpool, Exchange)


Campbell, I. (Dunbartonshire, W.)
Hunter, Adam
Pavitt, Laurie


Cant, R. B.
Irvine, Rt. Hn. Sir Arthur (Edge Hill)
Pearl, Rt. Hn. Fred


Carmichael, Neil
Janner, Greville
Pendry, Tom


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Jay, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Perry, Ernest G.


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Jeger, Mrs. Lena
Prentice, Rt. Hn. Reg


Castle, Rt. Hn. Barbara
Jenkins, Hugh (Putney)
Price, William (Rugby)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Probert, Arthur


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmor
Radice, Giles


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, Carol (Lewisham, S.)
Reed, D. (Sedgefield)


Concannon, J. D.
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Corbel, Mrs. Freda
Johnson, Walter (Derby, S.)
Rhodes, Geoffrey


Cox, Thomas (Wandsworth, C.)
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Richard, Ivor


Crawshaw, Richard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Roberts, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Cronin, John
Jones, Rt.Hn.Sir Elwyn(W.Ham,S.)
Robertson, John (Paisley)


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Jones, Gwynoro (Carmarthen)
Roderick, Caerwyn E. (Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Crossman, Rt. Hn. Richard
Jones, T. Alec (Rhondda, W.)
Rodgers, William (Stockton-on-Tees)


Cunningham, G. (Islington, S.W.)
Judd, Frank
Roper, John


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kaufman, Gerald
Rose, Paul B.


Dalyell, Tam
Kelley, Richard
Ross, Rt. Hn. William (Kilmarnock)


Davidson, Arthur
Kerr, Russell
Sandelson, Neville


Davies, Denzil (Llanelly)
Kinnock, Neil
Sheldon, Robert (Ashton-under-Lyne)


Davies, G. Elfed (Rhondda, E.)
Lambie, David
Shore, Rt. Hn. Peter (Stepney)


Davies, lfor (Gower)
Lamborn, Harry
Short, Rt.Hn.Edward (N'c'tle-u-Tyne)


Davis, Clinton (Hackney, C.)
Lamond, James
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)
Latham, Arthur
Silkin, Rt. Hn. John (Deptford)


Deakins, Eric
Lawson, George
Silkin, Hn. S. C. (Dulwich)


de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Leadbitter, Ted
Sillars, James


Delargy, Hugh
Lee, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Silverman, Julius


Dell, Rt. Hn. Edmund
Leonard, Dick
Skinner, Dennis


Dempsey, James
Lewis, Arthur (W. Ham, N.)
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Doig, Peter
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Smith, John (Lanarkshire, N.)


Dormand, J. D.
Lipton, Marcus
Spearing, Nigel


Douglas, Dick (Stirlingshire, E.)
Lomas, Kenneth
Spriggs, Leslie


Douglas-Mann, Bruce
Loughlin, Charles
Stallard, A. W.


Driberg, Tom
Lyon, Alexander W. (York)
Steel, David


Duffy, A. E. P.
Lyons, Edward (Bradford, E.)
Stewart, Rt. Hn. Michael (Fulham)


Dunnett, Jack
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Stoddart, David (Swindon)


Eadie, Alex
McBride, Neil
Stonehouse, Rt. Hn. John


Edelman, Maurice
McCartney, Hugh
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McElhone, Frank
Strang, Gavin


Edwards, William (Merioneth)
McGuire, Michael
Strauss, Rt. Hn. G. R.


Ellis, Tom
Machin, George
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


English, Michael
Mackenzie, Gregor
Swain Thomas


Evans, Fred
Mackie, John
Taverne, Dick


Ewing, Harry
Mackintosh, John P.
Thomas, Rt.Hn.George (Cardiff, W.)


Faulds, Andrew
Maclennan, Robert
Thomas, Jeffrey (Abertillery)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
McMillan, Tom (Glasgow, C.)
Thorpe, Rt. Hn. Jeremy


Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Mahon, Simon (Bootle)
Tinn, James


Fletcher, Raymond (Ilkeston)
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfield, E.)
Tomney, Frank


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Marks, Kenneth
Tope, Graham


Foot, Michael
Marquand, David
Torney, Tom


Forrester, John
Marsden, F.
Tuck, Raphael


Fraser, John (Norwood)
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Urwin, T. W.


Freeson, Reginald
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Varley, Eric G.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Mayhew, Christopher
Wainwright, Edwin


Garrett, W. E.
Meacher, Michael
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Gilbert, Dr. John
Mellish, Rt. Hn. Robert
Walker, Harold (Doncaster)


Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Mendelson, John
Wallace, George


Gordon Walker Rt. Hn. P. C.
Mikardo, Ian
Watkins, David


Gourlay, Harry
Millan, Bruce
Weitzman, David


Grant, George (Morpeth)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
Wellbeloved, James


Grant, John D. (Islington, E.)
Milne, Edward
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Griffiths, Eddie (Brightside)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, ltchen)
White, James (Glasgow, Pollok)


Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Molloy, William
Whitehead, Phillip


Hamilton, James (Bothwell)
Morgan, Elystan (Cardiganshire)
Whitlock, William


Hamilton, William (Fife, W.)
Morris, Alfred (Wythenshawe)
Willey, Rt. Hn. Frederick


Hamling, William
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Williams, Alan (Swansea, W.)



Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)



Hannan, William (G'gow, Maryhill)
Moyle, Roland
Williams, Mrs. Shirley (Hitchin)


Hardy, Peter
Mulley, Rt. Hn. Frederick
Williams, W. T. (Warrington)


Harrison, Walter (Wakefield)
Murray, Ronald King
Wilson, Alexander (Hamilton)


Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Oakes, Gordon
Wilson, Rt. Hn. Harold (Huyton)


Hattersley, Roy
Ogden, Eric
Wilson, William (Coventry, S.)


Hatton, F.
O'Malley, Brian
Woof, Robert


Healey, Rt. Hn. Denis
Oram, Bert
TELLERS FOR THE AYES


Hefter, Eric S.
Orbach, Maurice
Mr. James Dunn and


Hilton, W. S.
Orme, Stanley
Mr. John Golding.







NOES


Adley, Robert
Fortescue, Tim
MacArthur, Ian


Alison, Michael (Barkston Ash)
Foster, Sir John
McCrindle, R. A.


Amery, Rt. Hn. Julian
Fowler, Norman
McLaren, Martin


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Fox, Marcus
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy


Astor, John
Fraser, Rt.Hn.Hugh(St'fford &amp; Slone)
McMaster, Stanley


Atkins, Humphrey
Fry, Peter
Macmillan, Rt.Hn.Maurice(Farnham)


Awdry, Daniel
Galbraith, Hn. T. G. D.
McNair-Wilson, Michael


Baker, Kenneth (St. Marylebone)
Gardner, Edward
McNair-Wilson, Patrick (New Forest)


Baker, W. H. K. (Banff)
Gibson-Watt, David
Madden, Martin


Balniel, Rt. Hn. Lord
Gilmour, Ian (Norfolk, C.)
Madel, David


Batsford, Brian
Gilmour, Sir John (Fife, E.)
Maginnls, John E.


Beamish, Col. Sir Tufton
Glyn, Dr. Alan
Marples, Rt. Hn. Ernest


Bell, Ronald
Goodhart, Philip
Marten, Neil


Bennett, Sir Frederic (Torquay)
Gorst, Joh[...]
Mather, Carol


Bennett, Dr. Reginald (Gosport)
Gower, Raymond
Maude, Angus


Benyon, W.
Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Maudling, Rt. Hn. Reginald


Berry, Hn. Anthony
Gray, Hamish
Mawby, Ray


Biffen, John
Green, Alan
Meyer, Sir Anthony


Biggs-Davison, John
Grieve, Percy
Mills, Peter (Torrington)


Blaker, Peter
Griffiths, Eldon (Bury S. Edmunds)
Mills, Stratton (Belfast, N.)


Boardman, Tom (Leicester, S.W.)
Grylls, Michael
Miscampbell, Norman


Body, Richard
Gummer, J. Selwyn
Mitchell, Lt.-Col.C.(Aberdeenshire,W)


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Gurden, Harold
Mitchell, David (Basingstoke)


Bossom, Sir Clive
Hall, Miss Joan (Keighiey)
Moate, Roger


Bowden, Andrew
Hall, John (Wycombe)
Molyneaux, James


Braine, Sir Bernard
Hall-Davis, A. G. F.
Money, Ernie


Bray, Ronald
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Monks, Mrs. Connie


Brinton, Sir Tatton
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Montgomery, Fergus


Brocklebank-Fowler, Christopher
Harrison, Brian (Maldon)
More, Jasper


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)


Bruce-Gardyne, J.
Haselhurst, Alan
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.


Bryan, Sir Paul
Hastings, Stephen
Morrison, Charles


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angua,N&amp;M)
Havers, Sir Michael
Mudd, David


Buck, Antony
Hayhoe, Barney
Murton, Oscar


Bullus, Sir Eric
Heath, Rt. Hn. Edward
Nabarro, Sir Gerald


Burden, F. A.
Heseltine, Michael
Neave, Airey




Nicholls, Sir Harmar


Butler, Adam (Bosworth)
Hicks, Robert
Normanton, Tom


Campbell, Rt. Hn.G.(Moray &amp; Nairn)
Higgins, Terence L.
Nott, John


Carlisle, Mark
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Onslow, Cranley


Carr, Rt. Hn. Robert
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Cary, Sir Robert
Holland, Philip
Orr, Capt. L. P. S.


Channon, Paul
Holt, Miss Mary
Osborn, John


Chapman, Sydney
Hordern, Peter
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Chataway, Rt. Hn. Christopher
Hornby, Richard
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Page, John (Harrow, W.)


Churchill, W. S.
Howe, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Peel, Sir John


Clark, William (Surrey, E.)
Howell, David (Guildford)
Percival, Ian


Clarke, Kenneth (Rushcliffe)
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Peyton, Rt. Hn. John


Cockeram, Eric
Hunt, John
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Cooke, Robert
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Pink, R. Bonner


Coombs, Derek
Iremonger, T. L.
Pounder, Rafton


Cooper, A. E.
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Cordle, John
James, David
Price, David (Eastieigh)


Cormack, Patrick
Jenkin, Patrick (Woodford)
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.



Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Proudfoot, Wilfred


Costain, A. P.
Jessel, Toby
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Critchley, Julian
Johnson Smith, G. (E. Grinstead)
Quennell, Miss J. M.


Crouch, David
Jones, Arthur (Northants, S.)
Raison, Timothy


Crowder, F. P.
Jopling, Michael
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Joseph, Rt. Hn. Sir Keith
Rawlinson Rt. Hn. Sir Peter


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen.Jack
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Redmond, Robert


Dean, Paul
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Deedes, Rt. Hn. W. F.
Kershaw, Anthony
Rees, Peter (Dover)


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Kilfedder, James
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Dixon, Piers
Kimball, Marcu[...]
Renton, Rt. Hn. Sir David


Dodds-Parker, Sir Douglas
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Rhys Williams, Sir Brandon


Douglas-Home, Rt. Hn. Sir Alec
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Ridley, Hn. Nicholas


Drayson, G. B.
Kinsey, J. R.
Ridsdale, Julian


du Cann, Rt. Hn. Edward
Kirk, Peter
Rippon, Rt. Hn. Geoffrey


Dykes, Hugh
Kitson, Timothy
Roberts, Michael (Cardiff. N.)


Eden, Rt. Hn. Sir John
Knight, Mrs. Jill
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Knox, David
Rodgers, Sir John (Sevenoaks)


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Lamont, Norman
Rossi, Hugh (Hornsey)


Elliott, R. W. (N'c'tie-upon-Tyne,N.)
Lane, David
Rost, Peter


Emery, Peter
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Royle, Anthony


Eyre, Reginald
Le Merchant, Spencer
Russell, Sir Ronald


Farr, John
Lewis, Kenneth ([...]utiand)
Scott, Nicholas


Fell, Anthony
Lloyd, Rt.Hn.Geoffrey(Sut'nC'field)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Lloyd, Ian (P'tsm'th, Langstone)
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Fidler, Michael
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Shelton, William (Clapham)


Finsberg, Geoffrey (Hampstead)
Loveridge, John
Shersby, Michael


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Luce, R. N.
Simeons, Charles


Fookes, Miss Janet
McAdden, Sir Stephen
Sinclair, Sir George







Skeet, T. H. H.
Tebbit, Norman
Ward, Dame Irene


Smith, Dudley (W'wick &amp; L'mington)
Temple, John M.
Warren, Kenneth


Soref, Harold
Thatcher, Rt. Hn. Mrs. Margaret
Weatherill, Bernard


Speed, Keith
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Spence, John
Thomas, Rt. Hn. Peter (Hendon, S.)
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Sproat, lain
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)
Wiggin, Jerry


Stainton, Keith
Tilney, John
Wilkinson, John


Stanbrook, Ivor
Trafford, Dr. Anthony
Winterton, Nicholas


Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)
Trew, Peter
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)
Tugendhat, Christopher
Wood, Rt. Hn. Richard


Stokes, John
Turton Rt. Hn, Sir Robin
Woodnutt, Mark


Stuttaford, Dr. Tom
Vaughan, Dr. Gerard
Worsley, Marcus


Sutcliffe, John
Vickers, Dame Joan
Wylie, Rt. Hn. N. R.


Tapsell Peter
Waddington, David
Younger, Hn. George


Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)
Walker, Rt. Hn. Peter (Worcester)



Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)
Walker-Smith, Rt. Hn. Sir Derek
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Taylor, Frank (Moss Side)
Wall, Patrick
Mr. Walter Clegg and


Taylor, Robert (Croydon, N.W.)
Walters, Dennis
Mr. Paul Hawkins.

Question accordingly negativated.

INSURANCE COMPANIES BILL [Lords]

As Amended (in Standing Committee), considered.

New Clause 1

INSURANCE COMMISSIONER

(1) The Secretary of State shall appoint an officer to be known as the Insurance Commissioner.
(2) The Insurance Commissioner may appoint such staff as he thinks fit.
(3) It shall be the duty of the Insurance Commissioner:

(a) to keep under review practices relating to insurance which affect policy holders or potential policyholders in the United Kingdom and to collect information with respect to these practices and the persons by whom they are carried on with a view to his becoming aware of practices relating to insurance which may adversely affect the interests of policyholders or potential policyholders in the United Kingdom;
(b) to receive and investigate complaints by policyholders or potential policyholders in the United Kingdom;
(c) to have regard to evidence becoming available to him with respect to any course of conduct on the part of an insurance company to which the Act of 1958 applies and which appears to be conduct detrimental to the interests of policyholders or potential policyholders in the United Kingdom, and to publish such evidence in any way which he thinks fit;
(d) to give, either at his own initiative or at the request of the Secretary of State, information, assistance and advice to the Secretary of State with respect to any of the matters mentioned in paragraph (a), (b) and (c) above and with respect to the exercise by the Secretary of State of any of his powers under the Act of 1958, Part II of the Act of 1967 or this Act.


(4) The Insurance Commissioner shall publish an annual report and may also arrange for the publication at any other time in such form and in such manner as he may consider appropriate, of such information and advice with respect to practices relating to insurance as it may appear to him to be desirable to give to policyholders or potential policyholders in the United Kingdom.—[Mr. Millan.]

Brought up, an read the First time.

7.10 p.m.

Mr. Bruce Millan (Glasgow, Craig-ton): I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
In Committee we had a rather unsatisfactory debate about the proposal for an insurance commission contained in a new clause moved by my hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter): It dealt with a rather wider series of matters than new Clause 1 does. There has been a certain confusion between two concepts which are entirely different. First, there is the concept that there should be an insurance commission which would take over some of the regulatory work at present performed by the insurance division of the Department of Trade and Industry. There is a case for that, but the Bill as drafted is very much on the basis that work of that kind will remain with the Department.
For the purpose of the present argument, I will accept that situation, but the question whether there should be an insurance commissioner, with something like the ombudsman's functions, is a separate question, and it is possible to accept that the Department should be responsible generally for the regulatory work of dealing with the insurance business and at the same time to believe that there is an important rôle to be played by an insurance commissioner of the sort we propose.
Why do we need some kind of independent person for the insurance industry? It is not because we believe that all insurance companies are operated in a way detrimental to their policy holders or that there is a large element in the industry operating in discreditable ways. That is not the situation. The insurance industry as a whole operates fairly towards policy holders and potential policy holders, but the fact remains that there are certain elements in it—the purpose of the Bill is largely to deal with them—which, unless they are carefully controlled and checked, are likely to behave in ways unfair to policy holders and in certain circumstances in fraudulent ways.
Apart from that, the question of an insurance contract raises the point that the potential policy holder is nearly always in an unequal situation in relation to the insurance company because it has a vast body of knowledge and expertise behind it whereas he is normally relying to a large extent in making the contract on what the insurance company tells him.
7.15 p.m.
The point is well made by the Scott Committee's Report in paragraph 237, although admittedly in relation to linked life assurance. But the paragraph goes significantly beyond that in saying:
We recognise that a policyholder may feel a sense of helplessness when he is confused by complicated material which he does not fully understand.
That is basically the case for the appointment of an insurance commissioner.
Many policies which people now take out are very complicated with much detail and sometimes almost unintelligible provisions. Hon. Members from time to time get cases of constituents relating to a policy in which the constituents felt that they were covered for some particular liability but on making the claim found that they were not. We are also familiar with cases where the company has denied liability for some reason, good or bad, perhaps because there was not full disclosure by the policy holder of all the material when the policy was first contracted for, or is acting in a difficult way in dealing with a claim, causing delay and anxiety to the policy holder. There is also the minority of cases where the policy holder unfortunately finds that he is insured for some particular liability with a company which turns out to be run incompetently or even fraudulently.
The Scott Committee turned down the proposal for an insurance ombudsman but did so for narrow and unsatisfactory reasons. Basically, it said that there should not be an ombudsman only for linked life assurance. I do not think that what the majority report said about the ombudsman by any means closes the issue.
Miss E. R. C. Roberts, in an interesting note of reservation to the report, recommended that there should be an insurance commissioner. New Clause 1 takes up that minority point. I do not believe that the kind of job which the clause would give an insurance commissioner can adequately be done by the Department. There is an important rôle for the Department to play in the regulation of insurance business but the job we propose, which is set out in sub-paragraph (b)—
to receive and investigate complaints by policyholders or potential policyholders… is not the kind of job which the Department can adequately do, nor the kind of

job which one would normally expect it to do.
The Department in a matter of this sort has to deal exclusively with what is actually in legislation or regulations. It cannot be discriminatory between one insurance company and another. It has not a particular point of view as to whether a certain practice is desirable or undesirable. It is, therefore, not able adequately to do the job of protecting the policy holders in the way in which the clause offers. This argument has been accepted by the Government in a wider context in the Fair Trading Bill, and the Minister will no doubt have seen that the wording of the clause very much follows the wording of the Fair Trading Bill.
The argument used for the appointment of the Director-General of Fair Trading in a wider sphere of consumer affairs has basically been the sort of argument that I have used in relation to the insurance industry. It does not presume that one is dealing with a large mass of people who are liable deliberately to swindle consumers, but it means that if we are to make consumer protection a reality there is need for an independent agency looking after the interests of consumers, outside and independent of Government Departments and, indeed, in certain circumstances willing to make itself unpopular with Government Departments by telling Ministers things which in certain circumstances they might not want to hear.
Therefore, the principle behind the clause is very much the principle which is behind the appointment of the Director-General of Fair Trading. The wording I have used is basically much the same. Paragraph (a) deals with keeping under review insurance practices so that the information is available to the commissioner and paragraph (b), as I have already stated, relates to receiving and investigating complaints. Paragraph (c) is also taken from the Fair Trading Bill, but in this case directed towards a particular insurance company which may be giving widespread cause for concern and where the commissioner feels, first, that the public should be warned about the insurance company and, secondly, that the Minister ought to be warned as well so that the powers available to the


Minister to deal with the insurance company or with the industry as a whole are used in the circumstances which have come to light. Paragraph (d) simply gives a general power of giving information, assistance and advice to the Secretary of State so that he will be better equipped to use the powers than he has available with the previous insurance legislation and this legislation.
It seems that the only substantial argument against the clause giving a similar kind of arrangement already accepted by the Government for consumer practices generally is the fact that the Director-General can do the job as laid down for the insurance commissioner and can do it through the general procedures laid down by the Fair Trading Bill, which is still going through the House.
Under the Fair Trading Bill there are certain circumstances in which the work of the Director-General will fit the insurance industry. Although the insurance industry as a service is included in the Fair Trading Bill, it is also true that the procedures defined in the Bill do not in many respects adequately fit the insurance industry. Indeed, if they did a good deal of the Bill we are dealing with would not be necessary, There would not need to be, for example, any provisions in the present Bill for dealing with advertisements if the whole question of misleading advertisements could be dealt with under the Fair Trading Bill.
Second, I am not convinced that without a separate insurance commissioner the problems of the insurance industry will get the attention that they deserve through the office of the Director-General of Fair Trading, who will have wide powers and responsibilities and will, in the early stages at least, have many prior responsibilities. It is provided in the Fair Trading Bill that the Government will give priorities to the Director-General of Fair Trading. I shall be surprised—but perhaps the Minister will answer this point—if these priorities deal in the first instance with the question of the insurance industry. It seems to me that this is an important clause. It literally affects millions of policy holders and potential policy holders and is very much in line with the principles accepted by the Government and by the Opposition on the Fair Trading Bill.
It is another step towards making consumer protection in this important area a reality. It is in line with the recommendations and the evidence which the Consumers Association gave to the Scott Committee, and it is in line with enlightened consumer opinion generally in this country. I hope that it will be sympathetically considered and accepted by the Government.

Mr. Ray Carter: This Bill, which is undoubtedly complex, as we discovered in Committee, says a lot about the insurance industry and its management and control. Rarely does it mention the person in whom I have a considerable interest—as I am sure the whole House does—the policy holder. In Committee I tabled a new clause that embodied at least the principles of this new Clause. I sincerely hope that the Government will accept the principle embodied here. The new clause is required because in the insurance industry there is no independent body to whom policy holders can turn when they feel that they have a justifiable complaint.
As I pointed out in Committee, the industry does have an investigatory body of its own, but that is an internal affair. I accept that the people who administer and are responsible for it are honourable people, but it renders it liable to suspicion, because the industry appears to be both judge and jury. The other rather sad aspect about the present arrangements within the industry is that this body is virtually unknown to the consuming public. As far as I know, the industry has made virtually no effort to publicise the fact that if a policy holder has a complaint he can have it dealt with by this body.
I know of the existence of this body because, as I said in Committee, in my early days in the House a constituent had cause to raise a complaint with me about the industry. A thorough investigation was carried out, but at the end of it my constituent still felt that a thorough-going inquiry had not been carried out, so she did not feel able to accept the findings of that body. She was not in a position to afford to resort to law.
Complaints arise in many areas of insurance. They have arisen in my own case, following a fire at my home when


items were damaged and had to be replaced. I contested the value placed upon them by the insurance companies. That happened some years ago. Had I known that I could have gone to the insurance industry and complained and had my complaint investigated I might have been satisfied. At present there must be many people who have problems about valuations and who accept the insurance company's figure because they think that they cannot have their complaints investigated. They are unaware of the existence of this body.
There is, further, the whole area of motor insurance. We all know of complaints by people who feel that the value of their vehicle has been set too low. Once again, because of a lack of knowledge or an inability to contest the matter legally, the valuation of the insurance company is accepted and the owner's grievance is not dealt with. There is a similar picture in many other areas. Many similar complaints must arise with theft and life cover.
7.30 p.m.
There are also problems that arise when consumers feel that the company with which they are insured is not conducting its affairs in the correct way. I have many examples of this. People have written to me from the four corners of this country with complaints about one matter or another which they would like investigated. I am sure they would not feel that raising their complaints with the insurance industry and having them investigated by this internal body would meet the case. It does not matter what the control and ownership of the insurance industry is or is likely to be—whether it is State insurance, as much insurance already is, an incorporated company, or a mutually-owned company.
There should always be the right of a policy holder to go on an entirely independent body and have his complaint fully, impartially and independently investigated. A precedent has been set. The Secretary of State for Social Services established a commission to oversee the new reserve pension scheme, and existing pension schemes in industry and commerce. That is a precedent, apart from all the others mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Glasgow, Craig-

ton (Mr. Millan), which should appeal to the Government because here they have one Government Department saying that in one area it is believed to be necessary, indeed vital, given the present level of interest in consumer affairs generally, for people in pension schemes to have the right to go to the commissioner with a complaint.
If the Government cannot accept every word and line of the new clause they must at least accept its spirit and recognise that quite apart from the insurance industry, the wider interests of the public and the policy holder have to be considered. After all, the policy holder provides the wherewithal for the insurance industry. Were it not for them no insurance company would exist. It is about time we heard something from the Government Front Bench, in defence not so much of the industry but of those who make the industry possible—the policy holders.

Mr. R. A. McCrindie: I understand the objective of the new clause but I am not at all sure that I can go along with it. I say that because it is partly unnecessary and partly premature. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) has said that its purpose is to create something akin to an ombudsman. The question is fairly directed to the Government: if an ombudsman is an acceptable factor in other areas of life, why should it not be accepted here? The country as a whole runs a great risk in placing too much of a sublime faith on the word "ombudsman". It is a faith which I do not believe is always justified.
In considering the creation of an ombudsman in this area of commercial activity, accepting that it touches on the everyday life of the consumer, I wonder whether sufficient regard is paid to the fact that in dealing with insurance policies and irregularities under them we are dealing with legal contracts. To invite an ombudsman to move into this area would be embarking on a totally different course from that which ombudsmen in other areas have been expected to follow until now.
The Opposition suggested that the Scott Committee on linked life assurance considered but rejected the idea of an ombudsman because it dealt with a very


narrow section of linked life assurance I wonder whether that is a fair interpretation of what the Scott Committee said. In my view, having analysed the desirability of creating an ombudsman, the committee seriously questioned whether it was the right form of complaints machinery to introduce into this very intricate business.
I said that I felt that the clause was partly unnecessary and partly premature. Let me explain what I mean. The gist of the clause is in subsection (3)(a), (b) and (c). Many of the matters referred to in paragraphs (a) and (c) are referred to in the Bill. One could be excused for saying that the clause closes the door after the horse has been tethered. The horse is tethered by reference to such powers, taken in the Bill, as restrictions on the taking of new business, actuarial investigations, and the margin of solvency—all of which affect the matters about which hon. Members opposite are understandably afraid. The Bill deals with such matters as the control of insurance advertisements and misleading statements inducing people to enter into contracts of insurance. The essence of the Bill makes the new clause superfluous and unnecessary.
A different set of circumstances applies to subsection (3)(b). If I were to be asked to put in shorthand what that subsection referred to, I should describe it as consumer protection. As we are talking about a business with millions of customers, at a time when consumer protection is understandably fashionable and important, I wonder whether, for that reason alone, the clause should receive a measure of acceptance. On examination, I do not think that it should, because the creation of the Director-General of Fair Trading in another Bill going through the House provides the machinery under which some element of consumer protection can be extended to the public in insurance. It would therefore be premature to create, in addition to the director-general, another office particularly directed to the investigation of insurance complaints.
I am not against the delegation to another officer of some of the powers taken in the Bill by the Department of Trade and Industry. My right hon. and learned Friend the Minister may recall

that about two years ago a paper was produced suggesting that the office of registrar might well be considered. The Government, when considering this legislation, decided not to accept that idea. However, there is still an argument to be made for delegating to a registrar some of the powers that the Government are taking under the Bill, so that an element of independence—almost an element of consumer protection—is perhaps accidentally introduced into a Bill—does not specifically provide for it.
I understand what the clause is expected to do, but for the reasons that I have given I believe that it is unnecessary and premature.

Mr. William Hannan (Glasgow, Mary-bill): I am rather late in coming into these discussions, but I wish to say a few words about the suggested appointment of a commissioner out of my 20 years' experience in insurance before becoming a Member of Parliament.
In the 1930s, the May Commission considered the question of the insurance business. Some of the revelations and considerations that flowed from it were written into a book by a Member of the House at about that time—a Mr. Wilson. The May Commission found that in the 1920s and 1930s, because of uncertain employment, many policy holders were running into arrears. Having gone over the eight-week's time limit, they were sent forfeiture notices saying that if the arrears were not paid within a certain time the policies would be forfeited. The notice did not indicate that if the policy holder had paid five years' premiums the moneys would not be entirely forfeited, but a free paid-up policy for a reduced amount would be issued. That was written in small print on the policy, but many policy holders did not read it. They are aware of the name of the life assured, the policy holder and the sum assured, but outwith that, very few policy holders know the full extent of the conditions of the insurance.
The May Commission, instead of leaving the responsibility on the policy holder to claim back the reduced sum to which he was entitled if he had paid premiums for five years, suggested—and it later became law—that the onus should more properly be put on the insurance companies to inform the holder that, having


paid two years' premiums—as it is now—and having forfeited his policy because of non-payment of premiums, he had nevertheless qualified for a reduced sum by way of compensation for the moneys paid.
If I were still associated as closely as I was with the insurance business, I might well feel that such loopholes as that still existed. Therefore, I should have thought that a proposal such as that incorporated in the new clause would be of value. My hon. Friend the Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) spoke of motor insurance companies whose financial record has not been happy. Many of us still receive letters that indicate that insurance companies are treating policy holders almost with contempt, saying, "If you want to do more about the matter, the courts are open to you." We hear a lot of talk from the Government about the consumer, but they take very little action—at least, action that reassures policy holders.
For personal reasons, of which some of my hon. Friends are aware, I have not attended debates so regularly recently, but I hope that the point that I have made will encourage the Government to accept the new clause.

7.45 p.m.

Mr. Roger Moate: The House is sometimes accused of being rather slow. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. William Hannan), who has just quoted a 1920 proposal which might be expected to come to fruition in the form of the amendment, has produced a classic example of this.
I declare an interest as a director of a firm of Lloyd's insurance brokers. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle), I welcome the spirit of the amendment although I do not think it is a practical proposal which should be embodied in the Bill. I, too, supported the idea of a separate registrar or insurance commissioner. My objective was that he should conduct the regulatory functions embodied in the Bill. A separate registrar operating these functions within the City of London could continue to do so for many years to come, when, perhaps, the spotlight is off insurance companies, in a more sen-

sitive manner than can be expected from civil servants. I hope that the Government will not discount the possibility of hiving off these functions to a separate registrar at some stage, although the ultimate powers and sanctions must be retained and operated by the Secretary of State.
The amendment does not go as far as that. It is basically about an ombudsman. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) moved the clause in the same constructive way as he debated the Bill in Committee. He helped us by his close analysis of a difficult and complex Bill. I pay the same compliment to my hon. Friends who introduced the Bill. They made it more comprehensive to us, and we all appreciated that.
The Bill takes considerable powers to prevent the worst type of occurrences; namely, the collapse of an insurance company, blatant fraud and the abuse of legislation. Those are the matters of consumer protection with which we are primarily concerned. The clause goes in a different direction towards consumer protection on matters of judgment—more minor matters but just as real to persons who suffer loss.
Bearing in mind the millions of holders of life, motor and household policies, there are relatively few complaints. Many find their way into the postbags of Members of Parliament. Most of them are settled satisfactorily through ex gratia payments by insurance companies or by negotiation or arbitration. In such a vast and complex industry there must be some unfairness and wrong judgments. It is desirable to find a way of resolving those matters and making sure that everyone has a fair deal, but we should not run away with the idea that every claimant and every unhappy policy holder is whiter than white. There are many policy holders, both domestic and commercial, who abuse their policies. We are talking about the interpretation of legal contracts. That is the major difference between insurance and other legal matters and the area of responsibility of a director of fair trading.
An insurance contract, for example, may exclude a particular loss. The policy holder may not have read his contract or may not have understood it. If he suffers a


loss which is excluded from his policy, does he go to the ombudsman and say he feels that he should have been covered? He is not covered, and there is nothing that can be done.
I recall a constituency case of a man whose building was insured through the building society. All he had was a proposal form that said that the policy covered burglary. The policy covered burglary, but only for the building. That might seem illogical, but damage can be caused to a building by a burglar. The man thought the contents were covered, but they were not. He suffered a loss of several hundred pounds—most of his assets. If that problem had been taken to the commissioner nothing could have been done because no insurance company had received a premium or issued a policy to cover that loss. No insurance commissioner, ombudsman or director of fair trading for the insurance companies could settle 99 per cent. of the difficulties that arise.
We should have great sympathy for a person without commercial experience or legal training who is presented with complex insurance matters of which he has little understanding. I hope that the insurance industry is constantly seeking to make sure that its procedures are right. People can, and should, complain to the investigatory body that exists. They should write to the BIA to say that they feel they have been misled and ask the BIA to look into the matter, or they should write to their Member of Parliament. I hope that they will not do so on too large a scale. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why not?"] I was showing concern for the postbags of Members of Parliament, but they should come to us. I hope that we are constructive and sensible in dealing with genuine misunderstandings. We should make sure that policies have the right arbitration conditions. Many motor policies have written into them arbitration procedures which have worked satisfactorily.
The proposal contained in the amendment is not practical. That is not a reason to reject it out of hand. We should look closely at the arrangements necessary to ensure that policy holders get fair and impartial advice when they disagree with the insurance company. I am sure that the Government will do

this and, therefore, the amendment should be rejected.

Mr. Albert Booth: I support the clause. It would be a valuable extension to the Bill.
The Bill offers a certain form of protection to policy holders. If the Bill succeeds in ensuring that no insolvent company continues to operate and that no company gambles with the premiums it takes, no one can deny that this will result in the protection of policy holders. But there is an area of protection not covered by the Bill which would be covered by the addition of the clause.
I will cite one example of a policy holder in difficulty which shows the useful task which could be performed by a commissioner within the terms of the clause. A constituent of mine many years ago purchased a new television set. On the advice of the man who sold it to him, he took out an insurance policy to guarantee the repair and replacement of any part of the set should it be necessary. He did so at a premium which even now I think was exorbitantly high, but I make no complaint of that. He understood the amount of premium he was to pay and the protection he was to receive. Not long ago a minor fault developed in his set. Under the terms of his insurance contract he sent it back to be repaired. After considerable delay he was informed that the set could not be repaired because a component had a major fault. He was offered back the last premium he had paid and was told that the policy should not continue. When he protested, it was suggested that he might be given a slight discount for the purchase of a new set.
I examined the man's insurance policy with great care and discovered that the major component was specifically covered by the terms of the policy. I did not write to the company about the matter; I wrote to the Minister who at the time was responsible for consumer protection. The Minister's reply stated that this was a matter of contract between the policy holder and his insurance company and should be so dealt with. It surely must be true that in such a situation a policy holder is at a considerable disadvantage and that greater protection should be given to him than is provided by the legislation which is now before us.
There are many people today who are dependent on an insurance policy but are not in fact policy holders. I refer to those who are engaged in making third-party claims against a policy holder. Perhaps as a result of a defect in the policy they might not be able to obtain their rightful legal claim. I believe that it would be useful to have a commissioner who in cases of complaint is in a position to examine a policy carefully. This would also be a considerable protection to those who may wish to make a claim on the policy holder, and a commissioner would be invaluable to assist them in such claims. Such a commissioner could also examine the practice by which insurance companies take premiums on fire and theft claims on the basis of valuations which later the company will not recognise because it regards them as far too high—despite the fact that it originally took premiums on the valuation and has been drawing the premiums for a considerable time.
It has been suggested that the clause is unnecessary and premature. That it is unnecessary is open to question, as I am sure many hon. Members who have sought to deal with complaints about insurance companies on behalf of constituents will agree. The problems thrown up by constituents very much point to the fact that an investigation is necessary, in addition to the sort of consumer protection which exists in other respects. In insurance matters one is dependent on a form of printed legal contract to an extent which does not exist in other areas. One cannot have the sort of protection which normally exists in law against the glib salesman. If a salesman in a shop assures a person that a particular commodity meets the specifications he requires but the commodity fails to do so, that person has a proper claim against the salesman and his employer. But if a glib insurance salesman sells a policy that is not up to specification, the injured party has no call against him unless he can prove that the terms in the policy are not being met. A glib insurance salesman can sell a policy as "comprehensive" when it may in fact contain a great many exclusions. There is the additional danger that somebody might purchase an insurance policy believing that it gives rights which he

already has in law anyway. This is another reason for saying that a commissioner could usefully examine a policy holder's complaints.
I accept that the ombudsman cannot wave a magic wand to solve all complaints. What an ombudsman can do in insurance is to examine with a degree of impartiality—impartiality which is not available through the present machinery—the nature of complaint and give advice to the Minister on how regulations may be framed to extend protection. I believe that such a process will not come about without the inclusion of some provisions on the lines of those contained in the clause. If the Minister cannot accept the clause as a whole, I hope he will be able to accept its main provisions which aim at giving the sort of protection that is required by the policy holder.

8.0 p.m.

Mr. Peter Fry: I am grateful for this opportunity to say a few words on this legislation because, owing to my being involved in an accident, I was unable to take part in the Standing Committee on the Bill. Like my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), I wish to declare an interest in this debate, as an insurance broker. Having heard some of the comments by Labour Members, I feel that I should seek to correct the picture that has been drawn of insurance being biased on the side of companies against the policy holder.
The hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) gave certain examples of the way in which he thought policy holders needed protection, but in many cases the protection already exists. The hon. Gentleman spoke of the value of items destroyed by fire. The existing fire market would have enabled the person concerned to obtain full cover for the item. It would enable the person to take out a "no depreciation" contract, or a contract that would take account of annual increased sums insured. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman chose a contract that was a little cheaper than the normal contract, which would mean that the person would not get the sort of cover that he might otherwise have obtained.
The most common cause for complaint by motorists against insurance companies arises from the question of write-offs. I


submit that in the vast majority of cases this is not a matter for an insurance company. It goes back to the time at which the vehicle was purchased. It may be that a grossly inflated value was given in the purchase of another vehicle. The point I wish to make is that this is a matter for consumer protection rather than for legislation that seeks to interfere with the insurance companies.
If it were known that there was an avenue into which complaints about write-offs could be channelled in terms of valuations, the person responsible would be a very busy man. Thousands of complaints would pour in, and I am sure that the result would not be very welcome to the motorist. All these complaints would have to be dealt with, and the private motorist would have to foot the bill by paying increased premiums.
Much of the difficulty and the apparent need for greater protection of the policy holder arises from ignorance of the policy and, indeed, of the whole subject of insurance. Much could be done by far greater shopping around on the part of the policy holder. If a person buys his insurance in a local garage or from Uncle Fred who happens to have an agency, that person will not be obtaining qualified advice. After all, one would not dream of buying one's house through the agency of a greengrocer, or one's greengroceries from a garage. Therefore, it is advisable to obtain advice from the right source.
I make a plea for insurance companies to produce policies couched in simple language. The simpler the language the fewer the disputes and misunderstandings that are likely to arise. There is certainly room for improvement in this respect. I should have thought that the new advice bureau, which my right hon. Friend suggested in a speech last weekend, is the sort of place to which aggrieved policy holders could go if they have disagreement with their insurers. They could be given some solid advice at such a place.
I want to comment on the speech made by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth). I am perturbed about the lack of protection for someone with a third party claim for damage rather than for personal injury. An enormous gap exists here in insurance

legislation. Many innocent parties find that they have no recompense, but this is not the time or place to consider that question. If the hon. Gentleman wishes to discuss the question with me later, we may, between us, be able to approach the Government to produce legislation on the matter, but I do not believe that this clause, or Bill, is the place to do it.
Although I accept that there is disquiet by some policy holders, I believe that the market takes care of most of the complaints, and I do not believe that a director-general could answer all the complaints. Machinery exists in the Fair Trading Bill and other legislation at present going through Parliament, and therefore this clause is unnecessary.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: Like other of my hon. Friends, I must declare an interest in this matter. I did not intend to intervene, but I have listened to the debate with considerable interest and feel that I must refer to the Scott Report. It is clear that two types of commissioner are envisaged. There is the type who would have the responsibility of general supervision of the various powers laid down in the Bill. That is what Scott rejects. The Scott Committee felt that it might not be right to divide responsibility, and it could see not reason why an insurance commission would have greater powers or be more effective than a Department in administering the Bill. The Scott Committee may have been wrong. With my hon. Friend the Member for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle), I felt that there were arguments for an independent registrar, or commissioner, rather than the Department of Trade and Industry, to administer the powers provided by the Bill, but that is not proposed in the clause.
I am worried most of all about subsection (3)(b), and suspect that this is the part to which some hon. Members attach the greatest importance. Listening to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) and others who followed him, I wondered in what way this "ombudsman", if one may so call him, would operate. The Scott Committee made some suggestions about this. In paragraph 238 of its report it stated that:
it might be the ombudsman's duty to direct the policyholder to the various means of securing redress, or, more positively, to act on behalf of the policyholder to secure redress.


He might also seek to obtain by persuasition more than the policyholder's strict legal due.
This seems to be a long way from anything we have asked an ombudsman to do. The Parliamentary Commissioner can consider cases of maladaministration, and we know that his scope is strictly defined. It appears from the wording of the clause that it is
to receive and investigate complaints by policyholders or potential policyholders in the United Kingdom;
and from the implications of Scott that the insurance commissioner would have to act as a poor man's lawyer, or even act for nothing, in giving legal advice on what as my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate) has pointed out, is a legal contract. The commissioner would have to suggest—no doubt his influence would be weighted—that a legal contract is to be worthless, and that one of the contracting parties should be overruled.

Mr. Millan: We do not say that.

Mr. Edwards: The Opposition do not say that. If he has to seek by persuasion more than the policy holders' direct legal due—that is the implication—

Mr. Millan: That is what Scott says, but it is not what the new clause says. My concept of how the new clause operates is rather different from that, as I hope to make clear later.

Mr. Edwards: I shall be interested to hear what the hon. Gentleman has to say later. He will agree that the phrase
to receive and investigate complaints by policyholders or potential policyholders in the United Kingdom
is all-embracing. Let us assume for a moment that the Insurance Commissioner investigates a complaint. If he decides that there is no legal contract and that the premium was not paid to cover a particular matter, but feels that the policy holder did not understand this, did not comprehend the complexities of the matter and was not under any doubt that he was covered, there would be tremendous pressure on the insurance company to settle any insurance, which may be totally unreasonable.
Setting up an independent body to comment and advise on what are legal contracts has very wide-ranging implica-

tions, and in my view we should examine the proposal with more care and with greater certainty than we have done so far. We should be making a very big move. I believe that if it were to work at all the powers would have to be much more carefully defined than they are in the clause. We should have to have a great deal of clarification. We might have to have regulation and guidance about the scope of the body's powers. There may be some grounds for limited advice in certain directions, but the clause as it stands is quite unacceptable.

The Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs (Sir Geoffrey Howe): In considering the arguments advanced in this debate, it is relevant to refer back to the debate in Committee on the amendment mentioned by the hon. Member for Birmingham, Northfield (Mr. Carter) which advanced a rather different proposal but foreshadowed some of the arguments that we have heard today. But, obviously, it is useful to read not only the report of the Scott Committee itself but the observations made by Miss Eirlys Roberts in her personal note of reservation to the report.
I listened carefully to the observations of the hon. Member for Glasgow, Mary-hill (Mr. William Hannan) and my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough (Mr. Fry), because we understand why in the case of each of them it was not possible to take as full a part in the earlier discussions as they would have wished. For that reason we welcome their contributions to this debate.
Having said that about the hon. Member for Maryhill, I hope he will forgive me if I bracket him with the hon. Member for Northfield and say that in so far as either of them sought to suggest that this was not an important part of an important programme of action for the protection of the consumer they did a great deal less than justice to what is contained in the Bill.
The Bill is an essential, though perhaps unromantic, aspect of consumer protection. The interests of the consuming public—in this case the consuming policy holder—are the dominant ones which have led to the formulation and presentation of these proposals. It is wrong to suggest that they have been put forward dominantly in the interests of the insurance industry. Of course we have those


interests in mind, because the policy holder and, for that matter, the nation depend upon a prosperous industry. But it is wrong to suggest that in this Bill we are seeing all talk but very little action. This is an important part of a substantial programme of action to protect the consumer. It is the third piece of major legislation passing through both Houses in this Session.
We have to ask whether a case is made out for the separation of the functions identified in this clause from the Secretary of State under the Bill. Is it desirable for such a separation to take place, is the scale of the problems with which the clause is designed to deal large enough to justify separation, and, quite apart from the scale, is the nature of the problems sufficient to justify separation in this way? It is the last question to which my hon. Friends have addressed themselves principally.
8.15 p.m.
On the scale, I was glad that not only my hon. Friend the Member for Wellingborough but the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) pointed out that complaints in relation to the industry represented only a small fraction compared with the very large, good and effective activities carried on by the industry as a whole. Of the millions of policy holders who come within the jurisdiction of the Department of Trade and Industry, we received last year 359 complaints about different aspects of insurance. Most of them turned out to relate not so much to disputes as to misunderstandings. A number were not from policy holders but from third parties. A number were resolved by explanation and informal intervention by officials of the Department.
Simply in terms of scale, the establishment of a separate office of this kind for the industry would not be justified. Separation as an idea seems not necessarily to be very wise because one of the valuable aspects of contact between the Department and complainants is that the pattern, volume and quality of complaints can serve as a useful indicator to the Department in its function of overseeing the industry with special reference to solvency. The case being put is for stablishing a registrar or commissioner

of a totally distinct and hived-off kind. The case against it is the need to have some contact between the arrival of complaints and the supervision of the industry. The jointness of the functions helps support the supervisory rôle of the Department.
Beyond that, in terms of consumer protection and consumer representation we must remember the important supporting rôle of the Director-General of Fair Trading. It is impossible at this stage to seek to prejudge or predefine the priorities with which the director-general will approach his task. But it is important to ensure that he will be able to play a valuable part in the independent oversight of the insurance industry. That is acknowledged in Miss Eirlys Roberts' personal note of reservation where she identified the rôle of the director-general in a number of places.
It is right to understand that insurance is a service of the kind which will fall within the purview of the director-general. It is a service where inequality of bargaining power is a feature, as it is in many other services. That is why it is properly within the purview of the director-general.
Looking at the provisions of Clauses 2, 13 and 17 of the Fair Trading Bill, we see the extent to which the functions here sought to be assigned to the insurance commissioner can, and will, be discharged by the Director-General of Fair Trading. He will be able to keep under review the practices of the industry, to collect information about its activities so that he can become aware of practices which might adversely affect not only the economic but other interests of policy holders, to inform and assist the Secretary of State, to make recommendations to the Secretary of State, and to make proposals for regulations under Part II of the Bill and, in some cases, to exercise his powers under Part III.
In so far as there is a case for a separate, independent cross-check on the practices of the industry, apart from the Department, that will, or can, be met to a substantial extent by the Director General of Fair Trading. The example given by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth) of misleading sales could be considered under Clause 17 of


the Fair Trading Bill. It could also be looked at under Clause 42 of this Bill—misleading statements in relation to entering into a contract of insurance.
The point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill about the small print on insurance contracts could again be looked at under Clauses 13 and 17 of the Fair Trading Bill. In that there is a case for this independent, prodding, surveying official, apart from the Department, we shall find that the Director-General of Fair Trading can reasonably be expected to undertake that task.

Mr. Milan: Is it the intention that in future the various complaints that come to the Department shall be notified to the Director-General of Fair Trading?

Sir G. Howe: I am glad that the hon. Gentleman has mentioned that point. That is an area where there would be a degree of cross-contact both ways. If the Department gets a pattern of complaints which the Director-General could, and should, take on board, the Department will transmit them to him. On the other hand, if the Director-General received a pattern of complaints which he thought ought to alert the Department in its solvency rôle, he would no doubt transmit them to the Department. There should be a close relationship of that kind regarding this industry.
I listened with interest to the arguments advanced by my hon. Friends the Members for Billericay (Mr. McCrindle), Faversham (Mr. Moate), Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) and Wellingborough about the pattern which might at some stage emerge for the regulation of the industry.
My hon. Friend the Member for Billericay advanced arguments for a registrar. He said that a commissioner of this kind was certainly a premature proposition at this stage. But I do not discount for the future the arguments which were put forward by my hon. Friend the Member for Faversham.
The important point was made by my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke who said that the discussion that he and others had in mind involves the creation of a different kind of separate and distinct commissioner. It would need greater clarification of his powers and position

than is outlined in the clause. It is possible that in future, with the establishment and acceptance of the Director-General of Fair Trading, on the one hand, and, on the other, the possible establishment of a commissioner for consumer credit, if that is the pattern, the argument will advance along the lines mentioned by my hon. Friends.
But that is not the argument underlying the clause. I suggest, without disrespect to the way that the clause has been moved, that it is either premature or unnecessary. However, it has enabled us to have a useful debate on an important aspect of the extended protection afforded by the Bill.

Mr. Milan: I am rather disappointed by that reply, for one main reason. The right hon. and learned Gentleman was putting forward two contradictory arguments. First, he asked whether it was desirable to separate the functions with which the clause deals from the general regulatory functions of the DTI. His answer was that it was not.
The Minister then went on to say that, basically, in any case, most of the work can be done by the Director-General of Fair Trading. The absolute essence of the director-general's appointment is that he is separate from the Department. It seemed to me, therefore, that the right hon. and learned Gentleman was arguing in an unusually contradictory manner. I suspect that the first part of the argument arises because he does not believe that in this sphere there is a considerable volume of grounds for complaint. I do not accept that.
It is clear from the contributions that we have just heard, even from Government supporters who have argued against the clause, that this is an area in which large numbers of people, fairly or unfairly, often believe they get a wrong deal.
I take the point made by the hon. Member for Faversham (Mr. Moate), who gave an example of a case where the real complaint was that the policy did not cover the area that the policy holder thought it covered. That is a legal matter to which the clause is not basically directed. Obviously, if a person asks for one kind of cover he cannot complain if, having got it, when he makes a claim it does not fall within the cover for which he originally asked.
We want to get at the situation described accurately in Clause 17(2)(a) of the Fair Trading Bill—the situation
of misleading consumers as to, or witholding from them adequate information as to, or an adequate record of, their rights and obligations under relevant consumer transactions".
This formula fits almost exactly the kind of situation that we have in mind.
The point that arises from many of the complaints that we receive is not that the insurance company is disclaiming liability, where it obviously ought not to do so because the liability is there, but simply that the policy holder—one is not always clear in a particular case whose fault this is—is under a genuine misapprehension about the cover that he has obtained. If he is under a misapprehension, despite all the efforts of the insurance company—the fact that it has stated everything in intelligible language and done everything possible to put it in simple terms—at the end of the day there is nothing that he can do. It is just one of those unfortunate circumstances for which we cannot provide by legislation. If he is in that situation because of the way in which the policy has been drafted, or because the way in which it has been presented is misleading, or because he has been given inadequate information, it seems to me that that is the kind of practice which the law ought to try to put right.
8.30 p.m.
That is the kind of approach provided for in the clause. It is not the approach of the Scott Committee as described in paragraph 238. I accept what was said by the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards), that if there is a case in which, perfectly legitimately, a claim has been denied because the liability has not been covered, or there is no question of a policy holder's having been misled or not provided with adequate information, it is unreasonable, in any legal sense, to say that the matter should be put right. It may be something about which a consumer advice bureau, or a Member of Parliament acting as an honest broker—if I may use that expression—can help, but it is not something that one would want a commissioner to investigate.
I am disappointed with the Minister's reply. I take the point that by itself the clause is not adequate to do the

whole job, and that a good deal of what it attempts to do can be done under the Fair Trading Bill, but I am doubtful, particularly in the view of the Minister's reply, whether this will get the priority that it deserves or that the job will be done adequately by the Director-General of Fair Trading.
If the job is to be done adequately by the director-general he will have to deal with a host of complaints which some hon. Members on the Government side complain the insurance commissioner would have to consider. If the director-general is to do the job that he needs to do, these complaints will have to be sent to him, and I hope that it will be the practice of the Department to channel matters of consumer concern—not matters for the regulation of the industry—to the director-general so that he can then use the various powers that he will have under the fair trading legislation, such as references to the Consumer Protection Advisory Committee, regulations, and so on.
I am not very confident that that will happen but, on balance, I should be willing to allow the fair trading legislation an opportunity to deal with this problem. If, in the event, it is found that the director-general and this new machinery are not dealing adequate with insurance complaints, the case will be overwhelming for having a separate commissioner. But even then, because of the way in which the legislation is drafted, any complaint going to the insurance commissioner will ultimately have to be channelled through to the director-general in order to get the legislative results that we want.
It is with some reluctance that I do not press the clause to a Division. We shall watch carefully the operation of the fair trading legislation. I am sceptical about whether it will do the job that we would like to see it doing but I am willing, with some reluctance, to give it a trial, and on that basis I beg to ask leave to withdraw the clause.

Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 2

DIRECTOR'S REMUNERATION

'The documents to which subsection (1) of section 4 of the Act of 1958 applies (annual accounts and balance sheets) shall include a


statement showing the remuneration of each of the directors of the insurance company during the year and, where any of the remuneration has been paid outside the United Kingdom, the place or places where such remuneration has been paid'.—[Dr. Gilbert.]

Brought up, and read the First time.

Dr. Gilbert: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
Although the clause is directed ostensibly to Section 4(1) of the 1958 Act, if one looks at that Act one sees that Section 4 does not have a subsection (1). One has to look at the 1967 Act to see that the new Section 4 of the 1958 Act has a subsection (1).
Having said that and got some of the undergrowth out of the way, perhaps I should mention that at first sight the clause may appear to be something of an echo of the debate that we had last week on the Report stage of the Finance Bill, on what was then new Clause 2, which was moved by my right hon. Friend the Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey), but I hope to show that this clause is different from that one both in context and in purpose.
It might help to clarify things if I remind the House that on that occasion my right hon. Friend moved to add to Section 200 of the Taxes Management Act a requirement that a company's annual returns should
include all expenses incurred in the United Kingdom, its colonies, Commonwealth or non-Commonwealth countries.
The debate that then ensued concerned itself mainly with the technicalities of the operation of taxing overseas earnings of United Kingdom residents on a remittance basis rather than on an aggregate income basis, and it dealt also with opportunities for large-scale tax avoidance open to certain fortunate individuals.
The new Clause then moved was not directed to trying to bring all overseas income into the United Kingdom tax net. That would have been out of order at that stage. It was an information-seeking clause, and it related to returns under Section 15 of the Taxes Management Act 1970, which in turn deals with payments to directors and other employees. Section 200 of the Taxes Management Act, in turn, related to the apportionment of those expenses between

the different aspects of the reporting companies' business.
However, the new clause that was being debated last week related to returns intended for the eyes of Her Majesty's inspectors of taxes only, and my right hon. Friend's new clause was similarly directed.
This new clause is, however, in that respect quite different. It requires information about the remuneration of all directors to be disclosed and
where any of the remuneration has been paid outside the United Kingdom, the place or places where such remuneration has been paid.
Already, under Sections 6 and 8 of the 1967 Act, remuneration to directors and employees of the generality of companies, whether or not they are transacting insurance business, is required to be disclosed by slices of remuneration and the numbers of individuals being entitled to remuneration within each income bracket of £2,500, without there being any requirement that the names of the directors who receive the individual remuneration should also be disclosed.
The new clause goes further, in two ways, than the disclosure requirements of the Companies Act 1967. First, it seeks to have disclosed to the shareholders the amount paid to each director, and the name of each director. We think that disclosure of this sort should be required for all companies. We hope that the proposals on company law reform which the Government have promised will embrace requirements of this sort. However, tonight we are concerned only with insurance companies.
The second point of difference is that our new clause requires disclosure of the place where the directors' remuneration is paid when it is outside this country. The 1967 Act, for the generality of companies, quite explicitly hides from public view even the limited amounts of information it requires to be disclosed for most directors, where the directors discharge their duties as such wholly or mainly outside the United Kingdom. That exclusion operates with regard to disclosure of employees' emoluments also under Section 8 of the 1967 Act. That is the broad situation today in regard to the generality of companies, whether or not they are engaged in the insurance business.
The climate of opinion has changed greatly since the 1958 and 1967 Acts were put on the statute book. Few people would now argue that emoluments to directors of companies operating in the United Kingdom, where those emoluments are paid abroad, should be treated more tenderly, at least concerning disclosure, than emoluments paid to directors in this country. I suspect that the reverse is probably now the case and that most people would feel that disclosure was even more important in cases where emoluments were paid abroad.
I emphasise that the new clause is not just a fall-out from the Lonrho affair. It is not directed just towards remuneration paid in, for example, the Cayman Islands in particular, or any tax haven in general. We should remember that the Bill is not concerned with the generality of companies. It was not even drafted with the generality of insurance companies in mind. It was drafted to deal with crooks—not just the irresponsible or the inept among directors, but the downright wicked, as was virtually agreed in Committee by Ministers.
If it were not the case that the Bill was drafted largely to deal with crooks, Opposition Members would never have agreed to—nor, I suspect and hope, would the Government have asked for—the unprecedented powers contained in Clause 21. Those powers startled both sides of the Committee—even the hon. Gentleman who rose to ask for them. I admit that in retrospect I am still uncertain whether we should have accepted them, but we did.
Clause 21 probably gives the Secretary of State more wide-ranging discretionary powers than he has in any other context, enabling him to
require a company to take such action as appears to him to be appropriate for the purpose of protecting policy holders or potential policy holders … against the risk that the company might be unable to meet its liabilities.
Clearly, a Bill that can cheerfully digest such Draconian provisions as that would not even suffer a minor hiccough at being asked to swallow a clause of the type that I am now moving.
Again, it is important to recall the emphasis that was placed, in our discussions in Committee, on the problems of

non-resident controllers of companies directing insurance business in the United Kingdom, and also on the problems of non-resident companies themselves, as distinct from those companies that were resident but had non-resident controllers, even on what might be called nonresident advertisements for non-resident companies. All these matters were debated at considerable length in Committee, as hon. Members who served on the Committee will recall; and as other hon. Members who are sufficiently interested will have read the report of the Committee proceedings I shall not weary the House by reading those proceedings.
In Committee a clear concern was expressed that individuals—particularly non-resident individuals—might milk insurance companies in this respect. That is what the Bill is about. All that the clause attempts to do is to operate as an early warning system to give an inkling of what is going on to shareholders and policy holders who seek to inform themselves about the financial affairs of the company in which they have taken out a policy.
I hope that it is unnecessary to re-emphasise that the clause attaches itself solely to the Bill and not to the generality of company law, however much some of us might like to see an extension in the future. The clause, taken in the context of the situation that produced the Bill and the circumstances which the Bill seeks to prevent from recurring, is a relatively minor improvement, and I commend it to the House.

Sir G. Howe: The hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) reminded the House of the extent to which existing legislation requires disclosure of information about the remuneration of directors in general and pointed out that the information that must be given in relation to insurance company directors is the same as that required for the directors of other companies. It is laid down by the 1967 Act and has to be given in respect of directors falling into succeeding salary bands of £2,500.
The hon. Gentleman did not mention the additional fact that the Insurance Companies (Accounts and Forms) Regulations 1968 make specific provisions for it. Nor did he mention the additional provisions requiring information to be


given for senior employees earning more than £10,000.
The House well appreciates that these rules apply in relation to insurance companies in exactly the same way as they do in relation to other companies.
I appreciate the considerable public interest that there is in the extent to which there should be disclosure of remuneration of directors in general, quite apart from directors of insurance companies.
In this Bill our primary concern in the case of an insurance company is to ensure its continuing solvency. The generality of information on directors' remuneration is made available under the ordinary rule, and it is right that excessive remuneration of directors that looked as though it could threaten solvency should be a cause for inquiry and action in relation to solvency. But any generality of that kind would emerge from the general reporting provisions, and as long as no such generality revealed itself in that way, whether money was being paid to directors in this country or outside it, no problem would arise.
8.45 p.m.
The point I think the hon. Member has in mind in the context of insurance is that the disclosure requirements about directors' remuneration under the 1967 Act relate only to remuneration paid in respect of employment within the country. The answer to that in general terms would be found in the extent to which we could require the assets of an insurance company to be held within this country through the procedure of an annual survey in relation to the adequacy of assets held here, and unsatisfactory situations in respect of that could be dealt with under Clauses 14, 15 and 16.
The remaining point of the hon. Member's argument is hat there might be value in an early warning system in relation to directors' remuneration proceeding outside this country outside the 1967 Act. That is something which can be looked at, but I should not have thought it would require an amendment to the Bill in this way at this stage. He referred to the taxation question, but I do not think he wished to go back over that territory because he had the opportunity, which was denied me, of dealing with it at length last week.
The hon. Member also referred to the extent to which we are considering the possibility of general changes in the disclosure requirements under company law. He would not expect me to advance into that territory tonight except to say that the extent of disclosure requirements is one of the matters which must be looked at as part of any examination of company law.

Mr. A. P. Costain: Am I correct in saying that a company has to show brackets in which the directors' remuneration falls, yet the clause specifies that the directors shall be named? What benefit would a policy holder or shareholder have by knowing what each individual director received? Surely what worries the policy holder and the shareholder is the total amount paid to directors.

Sir G. Howe: My hon. Friend has returned to a point that I had already touched upon. As the hon. Member for Dudley mentioned, and I acknowledge, the existing provisions require disclosure in bands by reference to groups of directors according to their salary level. The proposal in the clause would involve identification of individual directors, which would certainly represent the introduction of a new principle, and, for the reasons I have already explained, this would not produce additional information. It would not be of use in relation to the extent to which payments to directors might be threatening solvency. Before accepting a provision of this kind, dealing as it does with individual directors, we should need to think very carefully.
So, for that reason and for the reason that there is no general requirement for a change of this kind, I cannot invite the House to accept the clause. I am not now talking in the more general context of what reforms might be necessary in company law as a whole.

Dr. Gilbert: I found the Minister's reply disappointing. Admittedly he did me the courtesy of going through my speech point by point and devoting to it more attention than I thought he was giving when I made it. I congratulate him on that. Like him, I did not have an opportunity of dealing with tax matters last week, although I should have


liked to do so, particularly on this point. However, he was right in saying that I was not referring to those matters.
The main purpose of the Bill is not merely to treat insurance companies as a special case but to regard them as particularly vulnerable to raids from unscrupulous individuals and to see that special precautions are taken for dealing with overseas individuals operating in this industry. I am glad that the right hon. and learned Gentleman concedes the principle of further disclosure for the generality of companies, even though he is not prepared to say how far and in which precise direction he intends to go later.
This is an ideal opportunity to deal with a generally unsatisfactory situation in an area where it is eminently necessary that there should not be an unsatisfactory situation. Policy holders and potential policy holders, to whom Clause 21 refers, should be given the maximum amount of

information about the way in which their companies are run and the types of people running them, long before there is any suggestion that there might be insolvency. They can then decide whether they want to take out a policy with a company of which any director—say, the managing director—receives the bulk of his remuneration abroad. They might then want to ask many questions about how much time that director gives, in this country, to the affairs of the company.

These are all eminently reasonable grounds for the House to accept the clause. It is not a major matter, but it would introduce a valuable little reform, and I am most disappointed with the Minister's answer. Therefore, I shall advise my right hon. and hon. Friends to divide in favour of the clause.

Question put, That the clause be read a Second time:—

The House divided: Ayes 113, Noes 133.

Divisions No. 205.]
AYES
[8.53 p.m.


Archer, Peter (Rowley Regis)
Garrett, W. E.
Moyle, Roland


Armstrong, Ernest
Gilbert, Dr. John
Murray, Ronald King


Barnett, Joel (Heywood and Royton)
Ginsburg, David (Dewsbury)
Oakes, Gordon


Beaney, Alan
Gourlay, Harry
O'Malley, Brian


Benn, Rt. Hn. Anthony Wedgwood
Grant, George (Morpeth)
Orbach, Maurice


Bennett, James(Glasgow, Bridgeton)
Grimond, Rt. Hn. J.
Orme, Stanley


Bishop, E. S.
Hardy, Peter
Oswald, Thomas


Blenkinsop, Arthur
Hart, Rt. Hn. Judith
Palmer, Arthur


Boardman, H. (Leigh)
Hatton, F.
Peart, Rt. Hn. Fred


Booth, Albert
Heffer, Eric S.
Pendry, Tom


Bottomley, Rt. Hn. Arthur
Houghton, Rt. Hn. Douglas
Probert, Arthur


Broughton, Sir Alfred
Hughes, Robert (Aberdeen, N.)
Radice, Giles


Carter, Ray (Birmingh'm, Northfield)
Hughes, Roy (Newport)
Rees, Merlyn (Leeds, S.)


Carter-Jones, Lewis (Eccles)
Janner, Greville
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)


Clark, David (Colne Valley)
Jenkins, Rt. Hn. Roy (Stechford)
Robers, Rt.Hn.Goronwy(Caernarvon)


Cohen, Stanley
John, Brynmore
Roderick, Caerwyn E.(Brc'n&amp;R'dnor)


Coleman, Donald
Johnson, James (K'ston-on-Hull, W.)
Roper, John


Concannon, J. D.
Jones, Barry (Flint, E.)
Short, Mrs. Renée (W'hampton,N.E.)


Conlan, Bernard
Jones, Dan (Burnley)
Sillars, James


Crosland, Rt. Hn. Anthony
Kaufman, Gerald
Silverman, Julius


Cunningham, Dr. J. A. (Whitehaven)
Kerr, Russell
Skinner, Dennis


Dalyell, Tam
Lamble, David
Smith, Cyril (Rochdale)


Davidson Arthur
Lamond, James
Spearing, Nigel


Davies G. Elfed (Rhondda E.)
Lawson, George
Spriggs, Leslie


Davis, Terry (Bromsgrove)




de Freitas, Rt. Hn. Sir Geoffrey
Lewis, Ron (Carlisle)
Steel, David


Dempsey, James
Lomas, Kenneth
Stott, Roger (Westhoughton)


Doig, Peter
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Strang, Gavin


Dormand, J. D.
McBride, Neil
Summerskill, Hn. Dr. Shirley


Duffy, A. E. P.
McElhone, Frank
Tope, Graham


Dunn, James A.
McGuire, Michael
Torney, Tom


Dunnett, Jack
Marks, Kenneth
Urwin, T. W.


Evans, Fred
Marshall, Dr. Edmund
Wainwright, Edwin


Ewing, Harry
Mason, Rt. Hn. Roy
Walden, Brian (B'm'ham, All Saints)


Faulds, Andrew
Mendelson, John
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Fernyhough, Rt. Hn. E.
Millan, Bruce



Fitch, Alan (Wigan)
Miller, Dr. M. S.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Fletcher, Ted (Darlington)
Mitchell, R. C. (S'hampton, Itchen)
Mr. John Golding and


Forrester, John
Morris, Charles R. (Openshaw)
Mr. Dick Douglas.


Galpern, Sir Myer
Morris, Rt. Hn. John (Aberavon)





NOES


Adley, Robert
Hamilton, Michael (Salisbury)
Oppenheim, Mrs. Sally


Archer, Jeffrey (Louth)
Hannam, John (Exeter)
Osborn, John


Astor, John
Harrison, Col. Sir Harwood (Eye)
Owen, Idris (Stockport, N.)


Baker, Kenneth (St. Maryiebone)
Haselhurst, Alan
Page, Rt. Hn. Graham (Crosby)


Benyon, W.
Hastings, Stephen
Peel, John


Biffen, John
Hill, John E. B. (Norfolk, S.)
Powell, Rt. Hn. J. Enoch


Blaker, Peter
Hill, James (Southampton, Test)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


Body, Richard
Holt, Miss Mary
Prior, Rt. Hn. J. M. L.


Boscawen, Hn. Robert
Hornsby-Smith, Rt.Hn.Dame Patricia
Pym, Rt. Hn. Francis


Bossom, Sir Clive
Howe, Hn. Sir Geoffrey (Reigate)
Ramsden, Rt. Hn. James


Bowden, Andrew
Howell, David (Guildford)
Redmond, Robert


Bray, Ronald
Howell, Ralph (Norfolk, N.)
Reed, Laurance (Bolton, E.)


Brewis, John
Hunt, John
Roberts, Wyn (Conway)


Brown, Sir Edward (Bath)
Hutchison, Michael Clark
Rost, Peter


Bryan, Sir Paul
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Scott-Hopkins, James


Buchanan-Smith, Alick (Angus,N&amp;M)
Jopling, Michael
Shaw, Michael (Sc'b'gh &amp; Whitby)


Butier, Adam (Bosworth)
Kaberry, Sir Donald
Speed, Keith


Chapman, Sydney
Kellett-Bowman, Mrs. Elaine
Spence, John


Churchill, W. S.
Kimball, Marcus
Sproat, lain


Clegg, Walter
King, Evelyn (Dorset, S.)
Stainton, Keith


Cooke, Robert
King, Tom (Bridgwater)
Stanbrook, Ivor


Coombs, Derek
Kinsey, J. R.
Stewart-Smith, Geoffrey (Belper)


Cordle, John
Kirk, Peter
Stodart, Anthony (Edinburgh, W.)


Costain, A. P.
Knox, David
Stuttaford, Dr. Tom


Critchley, Julian
Langford-Holt, Sir John
Sutcliffe, John


Crouch, David
Longden, Sir Gilbert
Taylor, Edward M.(G'gow,Cathcart)


Crowder, F. P.
Luce, R. N.
Tebbit, Norman


d'Avigdor-Goldsmid,Maj.-Gen,Jack
MacArthur, Ian
Thomas, John Stradling (Monmouth)


Dean, Paul
McCrindle, R. A.
Thompson, Sir Richard (Croydon, S.)


Dodds-Parker, Douglas
McLaren, Martin
Tilney, John


Edwards, Nicholas (Pembroke)
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy
Turton, Rt. Hn. Sir Robin


Elliot, Capt. Walter (Carshalton)
Mather, Carol
Waddington, David


Eyre, Reginald
Mawby, Ray
Walder, David (Clitheroe)


Fell, Anthony
Meyer, Sir Anthony
Wells, John (Maidstone)


Fenner, Mrs. Peggy
Miscampbeli, Norman
White, Roger (Gravesend)


Fidler, Michael
Moate, Roger
Wiggin, Jerry


Fisher, Nigel (Surbiton)
Molyneaux, James
Winterton, Nicholas


Fowler, Norman
Monks, Mrs. Connie
Wolrige-Gordon, Patrick


Fox, Marcus
Montgomery, Fergus
Woodhouse, Hn. Christopher


Fry, Peter
Morgan, Geraint (Denbigh)
Woodnutt, Mark


Gower, Raymond
Morgan-Giles, Rear-Adm.
Younger, Hn. George


Grant, Anthony (Harrow, C.)
Mudd, David



Gray, Hamish
Murton, Oscar
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:


Green, Alan
Nabarro, Sir Gerald
Mr. Tim Fortescue and


Grieve, Percy
Neave, Airey
Mr. Paul Hawkins.


Griffiths, Eldon (Bury St. Edmunds)
Normanton, Tom

Question accordingly negatived.

Clause 1

MARGIN OF SOLVENCY AND MINIMUM PAID UP SHARE CAPITAL REQUIRED FOR AUTHORISATION

9.0 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I beg to move Amendment No. 1, in page 1, line 12, at end insert:
'and an order under that subsection may make different provision in relation to different cases or circumstances'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It will be for the convenience of the House to take with this amendment Government Amendment No. 21.

Mr. Baker: Clause 1, as the members of the Committee will recall, deals with the higher requirements for the initial

capital for an insurance company and also for the higher requirements for a solvency margin. Clause 28 deals with the solvency margin for a company which is operating. Clause I deals with the minimum requirements to be satisfied by a company at the time of application for authorisation as to the amounts of paid-up capital and uncommitted reserves. The solvency margin for the general business corresponds in the case of an established company with the uncommitted reserves. That is governed by Clause 28.
Amendment No. 21 adds the same words to Clause 28 as Amendment No. 1 adds to Clause 1. I accept that the Opposition made a good point in suggesting that this is a matter in which a degree of flexibility might be desirable. I believe that they will find that the amendments meet that point.
Amendment agreed to

Clause 2

No AUTHORISATION FOR INSURANCE COMPANY UNDER CONTROL ETC. OF UNFIT PERSONS

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade and Industry (Mr. Anthony Grant): I beg to move Amendment No. 2, in page 3, line 9, at end insert:
'(a) the wife or husband or minor son or daughter of that person;'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take Government Amendment No. 4.

Mr. Grant: These amendments meet a suggestion made by the Opposition in Committee. We accept that it is right to make this addition to the list of "associates" in subsection (5)—that is to say, the persons whose shareholdings are to be aggregated with those of the persons with whom they are connected in order to establish whether that person effectively controls one-third or more of the voting power in an insurance company. I hope that these amendments meet the point that the Opposition were making.

Mr. Millan: As this amendment and the previous one meet points raised by Opposition hon. Members in Committee, and as there are about another 40 amendments that will also meet points made by Opposition hon. Members in Committee, I thank the Government now, to avoid my getting up constantly, for very sensibly listening to all the intelligent and sensible speeches that were made in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 3, in page 3, line 11, leave out 'employer'.

No. 4, in page 3, line 17, at end insert:
'and for the purposes of this subsection "son" includes step-son and adopted son, "daughter" includes step-daughter and adopted daughter and "minor", in relation to Scotland, includes pupil'.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Clause 6

STATEMENTS OF TRANSACTIONS OF PRESCRIBED CLASS OR DESCRIPTION

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 43, in page 6, line 21, after 'applies', insert:
'or subordinate company within the meaning of section 10 below of any such company'

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this amendment it will be convenient to take the following amendments: No. 5, in page 6, line 21, after 'applies', insert 'and every subordinate company within the meaning of section 10 below',
No. 44, in page 6, line 25, at end insert:
'(2) Different classes or descriptions of agreements or arrangements may be prescribed for the purposes of this section in relation to companies of different classes or descriptions.'
No. 45, in Clause 12, page 13, line 7, after 'section', insert 'or section 6 above'.

Mr. Grant: These amendments fill a gap to which attention has been drawn by Amendment No. 5. Amendment No. 43 follows the line suggested by the perceptive amendment tabled by the hon. Member for Farnworth (Mr. Roper). It was the Government's intention to require notice under Clause 6 of transactions subject to limitation under Clause 10. As, however, the transactions of subordinate companies or connected persons are to be aggregated with those of their parents, it is necessary to be able to impose a notification requirement on the subordinate. That is what Amendment No. 43 does.
The principle amendment leads to the need for the power to prescribe to be applicable to certain companies for certain transactions, and this is provided by Amendment No. 44. Amendments Nos. 45 and 47 are consequential.

Mr. John Roper: I must declare an interest in speaking for the first time on this Bill. I am a director of the Co-operative Insurance Society. I regret that I had no chance to participate in the earlier stages of the Bill.
I am grateful to the Government for Amendment No. 43, which is worded very similarly to my own Amendment No. 5 and has the same effect. It is an important amendment because it plugs a gap in Clause 10, as drafted, which could otherwise have left the clause open to the very abuse that it was designed to prevent.
Clause 10 proved extremely difficult for the Standing Committee, which spent a considerable time on it. It is of considerable importance, because it provides that, where a life assurance company is part of a group of collective companies,


not more than 5 per cent. of the life assurance fund may be invested with connected organisations within the group.
Obviously, such a clause is clearly necessary to stop the kind of thing that happened shortly before the Vehicle and General Assurance Company failed, when it borrowed £1 million from its subsidiary life assurance company—Pioneer Life. The dangers arise not only in the case of motor insurance but also with the other businesses within a group and with which the proprietors are involved. If one of those businesses gets into difficulties, there will be an irresistible temptation to the proprietors to take advantage of the life assurance fund—which represents people's savings—to try to save that business.
Clause 10 specifically exempts from the 5 per cent. restriction any investment by a life assurance fund in a subordinate company, so that if a life assurance fund is investing in a subordinate company—that is, a company in which the fund has a majority interest—the 5 per cent. restriction in Clause 10 does not apply, although any investment, in turn, by the subordinate company in connected organisations within the group is brought within the 5 per cent. restriction.
This exemption in Clause 10 is quite proper, because there can be proper investment by a life assurance company in its own subsidiaries. But although this is an unavoidable loophole, it enables a certain abuse to take place, because Clause 10, as drafted, would have limited the loan, for example, from Pioneer Life to the Vehicle and General to a maximum of 5 per cent. of the Pioneer's life fund.
If the structure of the company had been different, and if it had happened that Pioneer Life had been the parent company of Vehicle and General it would have been possible for Pioneer, even under Clause 10 as drafted, to have made the loan of £1 million. But the financial effect would have been the same and Clause 10 would have imposed no restriction on the amount which could, in such circumstances, have been lent by Pioneer to Vehicle and General.
It is clearly accepted, therefore, that Clause 10 must include an exemption of investment by a life assurance fund in its subsidiaries because otherwise a large

number of legitimate transactions would be caught.
We should ensure that regulations are made, and that is why the amendment is important, because it enables the making of regulations for immediate disclosure to the Department of Trade and Industry of any substantial investment transactions which may be a circumvention of the spirit of Clause 10. I hope the Secretary of State will make regulations under Clause 6, as soon as it becomes operative, to require immediate disclosure of any substantial investment by a life insurance fund in either a connected organisation or a subordinate company.
As it stands without the amendment, Clause 6 would not permit regulations to provide for the immediate disclosure of any investment of this kind. I am glad, therefore, that the Government have accepted the point in my amendment and that they have moved Amendment No. 43, which will give them the necessary power. I hope that they will use it. I welcome the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 44, in page 6, line 25, at end insert:
'(2) Different classes or descriptions of agreements or arrangements may be prescribed for the purposes of this section in relation to companies of different classes or descriptions'.— [Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Clause 8

APPLICATION OF ASSETS OF COMPANY WITH LONG TERM BUSINESS

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 6, in page 7, line 43, at end insert:
'(5) For the avoidance of doubt it is hereby declared that money from a fund maintained by a company in respect of its long term business may not be used for the purposes of any other business of the company notwithstanding any arrangement for its subsequent repayment out of the receipts of that other business.'.
This is an amendment to one of the four clauses in the Bill—Members who followed the Committee proceedings will appreciate their importance—in the interests of long-term policy holders. It provides that long-term business assets must be applied for the purposes of long-term business except when and to the extent that an actuarial investigation discloses a surplus. Subsection (1) contains


the essential provision, to protect the long-term policy holder, that the assets of the long-term business may, as I have said, be applied only for the purposes of the long-term business. It has been suggested that the clause does not make it clear that a loan on the long-term business funds cannot be made to the general insurance business side of a composite company or for the purpose of any non-insurance business carried on.
The new subsection removes any doubt on this point. I am not suggesting that this type of arrangement, commonly referred to as an inter-class loan, is improper in every conceivable circumstance, but it is prima facie undesirable that long-term fund money should be used to support an ailing motor insurance business carried on by the same company. Subsection (3) provides a mechanism whereby problems of liquidity, as distinct from solvency, can be handled. The House will appreciate that in exceptional circumstances the Secretary of State could consider an exception under Clause 38.

Amendment agreed to.

9.15 p.m.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 7, in page 7, line 44, at end insert
'and no company of which any such insurance company is a subsidiary'.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we will take Amendments Nos. 8, 11 and 47.

Mr. Baker: The amendments are all consequentially inter-linked. The effect of this amendment would be to prohibit an insurance company's holding company—as well as the long-term insurance company itself—from paying a dividend when the insurance company has an inadequate long-term fund.
This was the subject of an interesting debate in committee. The Institute of Chartered Accountants sponsored the idea and concept behind the amendment. Its justification for it was based on the fact that a company could conduct its long-term business entirely through a subsidiary and thereby abdicate its responsibility for deficiencies in the insurance funds. We accept that this is a fair point.
As the beneficial owner, the holding company has at least a moral responsibility and should be required to hold any reserves under its control available to

rectify the position of the long-term fund until such time as its adequacy is restored. This does not necessarily mean a subvention from the holding company if the cause of the inadequacy is ephemeral; it does, however, provide a strong incentive for seeing that things are put right as soon as possible.
Hon. Members who attended the Committee proceedings will recall that the amendments tabled there would have extended the ban to subsidiaries of the insurance company, and they will recall that I argued against that because payments of dividends by subsidiary companies in this situation would flow back into the long-term fund.
Amendment No. 8 is merely a necessary drafting change consequential to Amendment No. 7. Amendment No. 11 is also consequential upon the first amendment. Its effect would be to make any default by the holding company a further ground for the use against its insurance subsidiary of any of the intervention powers specified in Clauses 13 to 21.
Amendment No. 47 adds a reference to Clauses 6 and 8(5) in subsection (3)(b) of the penalty clause, Clause 52, the effect of which would be to make any default by the holding company in contravention of the dividend ban an offence for which the "residual" penalty would be the maximum fine of £400.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendment made: No. 8, in page 8, line 1 leave out 'it' and insert 'the insurance company'.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Clause 10

RESTRICTION ON TRANSACTIONS WITH CONNECTED PERSONS

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move amendment No. 41, in page 11, leave out lines 23 to 27 and insert:
'and for the purposes of this subsection share capital held for any person by a nominee shall (except where that person is concerned only in a fiduciary capacity) be treated as held by that person, and share capital held by a person in a fiduciary capacity or by way of security shall be treated as not held by that person'
This is not linked with any other amendment. It is perfectly straightforward. This brings us to Clause 10 which the hon. Member for Farnworth


(Mr. Roper), who was not on the Committee, but has obviously studied our proceedings with care, has already dealt with and occasioned a great deal of debate and no end of explanation.
The purpose of the amendment is to ensure that in determining whether a company is a subordinate of an insurance company first, shares in that company which are beneficially owned by the insurance company shall be taken into account whether or not they are actually registered in the name of the insurance company; secondly the shares in that company which are registered in the name of the company shall be disregarded if the insurance company holds those shares in trust for another person, or by way of security, and thirdly, shares in that company which are held by a subsidiary of the insurance company shall not be attributed to the insurance company.
The words which this amendment seeks to delete from the Bill would have achieved the first and second of the points I have made but would have caused shares held by a subsidiary of the insurance company to be attributed to the insurance company. The effect of the amendment is to reduce the scope of the concept of "subordinate company" and to reduce the number of such companies. It therefore reduces the freedom which the clause confers on life companies to invest in companies associated with them.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 9, in page 11, line 42, at end insert:
'(6)—(a) An insurance company which enters into a transaction to which this section applies shall, within such period as may be prescribed, furnish the Secretary of State with a statement containing such particulars of that transaction as may be prescribed;
(b) the whole or any part of any statement furnished to the Secretary of State under subsection (5)(a) above may be deposited by him with the registrar of companies and may be published by the Secretary of State in such ways as he thinks appropriate'.
The purpose of this amendment is to provide for any transaction entered into under the terms of the clause to be notified to the Secretary of State, who would deposit the information so obtained with the Registrar of Companies and might also publish the information if he felt that was an appropriate procedure. The

amendment is related to the earlier amendments on Clause 6, but it is right that it should be dealt with separately because I want to say a word about Clause 10.
I shall not go over all the arguments which we have had on Clause 10, even if I could remember them and make them sound intelligible, but it is clear—the Minister admits this—that there are potential loopholes in the clause. It has been an incredibly difficult clause to draft, and no doubt it could be improved, but it is doubtful whether it is possible to draft a clause about which one could say with utter confidence that it was so tightly drawn that any undesirable transaction could be caught. As there are loopholes, and as the provisions about subordinate companies may be open to abuse, it is important that information about the transactions carried out under the clause should be given to the Secretary of State.
The amendment provides that transactions caught by the clause will be notified to the Secretary of State. The potential worth of the amendment to Clause 6 which we have just passed is that transactions between associated companies could potentially be caught by arrangements made under Clause 6 if the Secretary of State makes the necessary regulations. Therefore, Clause 6, potentially at least, with the amendment to it which we have just passed, enables wider powers to be taken and wider information to be made available to the Secretary of State.
But that is only potential; it depends on the regulations. If the Minister can say that regulations definitely will be made under Clause 6 which will catch the kind of transactions under Clause 10 which my amendment and others cover, I should be willing to withdraw the amendment. But since the matter is very much concerned with Clause 10 it is appropriate that we should discuss it under Clause 10.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: The amendments to Clause 6 moved by the hon. Member for Famworth (Mr. Roper) anticipated the purpose of the amendment moved by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craig-ton (Mr. Millan). I can give the hon. Gentleman the assurance which he requires.
The amendment imposes a duty on insurance companies to report to the Secretary of State within a period to be prescribed transactions limited by the clause and to give particulars to be prescribed. Such statements may be placed on the company's public file or otherwise published in whole or in part at the Department's discretion. That is clearly desirable so that observance of the limitation may be monitored and possibly in some cases so that Clause 14 may be exercised to require realisation of "connected investments" even before they reach the 5 per cent. limit. But Clause 6 provides powers to make regulations for this and similar purposes which there is no point in duplicating.
I give the hon. Gentleman the assurance that the regulations made under Clause 6 will cover the points made in the amendment.

Mr. Milan: That was precisely the assurance which I wanted. Therefore, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the amendment.

Amendment, by leave, withdrawn.

Clause 12

GROUNDS ON WHICH POWERS ARE EXERCISABLE

Amendment made: No. 11, in page 13, line 4, after 'Act', insert:
'or that a company of which it is a subsidiary has failed to satisfy an obligation to which it is subject by virtue of section 8(5) above'.

No. 45, in page 13, line 7, after 'section', insert 'or section 6 above '.— [Mr. Kenneth Baker.]

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 12, in page 13, line 9, leave out from 'information' to end of line 10, and insert:
'to the Secretary of State under or for the purposes of any provision of the Act of 1958, Part II of the Act of 1967 or this Act;'
The amendment is another which results from a suggestion contained in an Opposition amendment in Committee. We then accepted the amendment in principle, subject to redrafting.
The effect is to widen the unnecessarily restricted ground for intervention in Clause 12(1)(c)—Hon. Members will remember that the clause is one of the central clauses in the Bill—so that the

furnishing of misleading or inaccurate information to the Secretary of State under or for the purpose of, any provision contained in the 1958 Act, the 1967 Act or the Bill constitutes a ground for invoking any of the powers in Clauses 13 to 21. The existing wording of Clause 12(1)(c) would permit the invocation of these powers only when the misleading or inaccurate information is furnished in connection with an application for authorisation.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 13, in page 14, line 2, leave out '14' and insert '13'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are taking Amendment No. 18, in page 19, line 27, at end insert:
'(6) This section shall not apply in relation to the exercise of the power conferred by section 13 above where, by virtue of subsection (4) of section 12 above, it is exercised by the Secretary of State when issuing an authorisation; and in relation to any other exercise of that power by virtue of that subsection this section shall have effect as if subsection (1)(a) required the notice to state that the Secretary of State is considering exercising the power by virtue of the said subsection (4) and as if subsections (2) and (3) were omitted'.

Mr. Baker: Amendment No. 13 is identical with one tabled by the Opposition in Committee, which we undertook to consider further. Having done so, we are satisfied that there is substance in the argument underlying the amendment.
Clause 13 was not included in the original text of Clause 12(4) as a power which could be exercised solely on the ground that the company had recently been authorised or brought under new control. The hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan) will remember the interesting debate we had on this in Committee. This was because the power to restrict, that is to say ban, acceptance of new contracts, which is one of the most Draconian powers in the Bill, can at present be applied only to the whole of the company's insurance business and such a restriction would be prima facie irreconcilable with the issue of an authorisation or approval of a change of control.
The situation will, however, be altered by the Bill in that the power to restrict business will be applicable selectively to


a particular description within a class of insurance, for example, motor fleet policies or "Road Traffic Act only" policies. There may, therefore, be cases in which it makes sense to issue an authorisation for a class of business or approve a change of control subject to a restriction upon the undertaking of a particularly hazardous description or a type of business that is particularly risky.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 14, in page 14, line 22, at end insert:
'(6) The Secretary of State shall, when exercising any power conferred by sections 13 to 21 below, i state the ground on which he is exercising it or, if he is exercising it by virtue of subsection (4) above, that he is so exercising it; but this subsection shall not apply where the Secretary of State has given notice under section 22 or 23 below of the proposed exercise of the power.'.
The amendment follows the acceptance in principle in Committee of an amendment that originated from the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). This shows how we are prepared to listen to argument if the argument is good.
The effect of the amendment is to require the Secretary of State to state the grounds on which he is exercising the powers in Clauses 13 to 21 which are the powers he can take if he is satisfied that the causes under Clause 12 can be established.
The reference to Clause 12(4) is based on the view that the circumstances to which that subsection refers—authorisation or change of control—are matters of fact rather than grounds in the sense of the term elsewhere in the clause. It is, therefore, necessary only to identify that subsection as the basis for action.
The reference to Clauses 22 and 25 make it clear that the requirements of the amendment do not duplicate themselves in other clauses.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 13

RESTRICTIONS ON NEW BUSINESS

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 15, in page 14, line 32, at end insert:
'(c) not to vary in such a manner as to increase the liabilities of the company any con-

tracts of insurance of a specified description, being contracts effected in the course of carrying on long-term business and in force when the requirement is imposed'.
At the risk of tedious repetition I should say that this amendment also arises from a point raised in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan). He questioned why, when a restriction was imposed on an insurance company under Clause 13, it should be permitted to vary long-term contracts although specifically prohibited from varying general insurance contracts.
I explained that the need to vary long-term contracts inevitably arose more commonly than is the case with short-term ones, that the policy holder's rights to vary were not necessarily defined in the policy and that it would often be a hardship to him to be unable to obtain a variation such as the issue of a paid-up policy or the premature surrender of the policy for cash.
On the other hand, I accepted that variations of other kinds were possible and that these might in some circumstances increase the company's liabilities, contrary to the intention of the restriction. This possibility is dealt with in the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 15

MAINTENANCE OF ASSETS IN THE UNITED KINGDOM

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 16, in page 15, line 12, leave out
'maintained elsewhere than in the United Kingdom shall' and insert 'shall or shall not'.
It is now the turn of the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert) to come in for a little praise. This amendment is similar to the amendment which was introduced in Committee. The object is to permit assets technically maintained in the United Kingdom not to be accepted as such for the purposes of the requirements of the clause. These assets will not necessarily be of a dubious nature or improper in any way. There may be technical difficulties in relation to the monitoring of the value of the assets or the risk of their being realised abroad in spite of the share register being kept in this country.
I shall give some indication of the way in which we envisage this power as modified by the amendment to be exercised. It is a specific requirement in the circumstances of a particular company that normally assets maintained in the United Kingdom are of such a nature as to meet the requirements of the clause. There may be circumstances, however, where there is doubt whether they can be realised in the United Kingdom or readily realised elsewhere, even though technically they are maintained here. The Department is enabled to direct that a particular asset cannot be treated as if it were maintained in the United Kingdom where there is doubt as to the security which it offers to the policy holder. This is apart from the application of the valuation regulations provided for in subsection (4) or the possibility of requiring under Clause 14 the realisation of inherently unsuitable assets. Nevertheless, the amendment represents a useful additional provision and I hope that the hon. Gentleman will agree that it meets his point.

Amendment agreed to

Clause 20

POWER TO OBTAIN INFORMATION AND REQUIRE PRODUCTION OF DOCUMENTS

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 17, in page 18, line 21, leave out 'or controller' and insert 'controller or auditor'.
The purpose of this amendment, which has been introduced following a similar amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), is to include the present or past auditor of the insurance company among the persons who may be required to provide an explanation of books or papers of the company produced for inspection under this provision. As the hon. Gentleman indicated in Committee, the auditor could be in a position to give most useful explanations of matters in books or papers which he will probably have examined.
I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for raising the matter and I trust that he will agree that the point of his amendment has been met.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 22

NOTICE OF PROPOSED EXERCISE OF POWER UNDER SECTION 13

Amendment made: No. 18, in page 19, line 27, at end insert:
'(6) This section shall not apply in relation to the exercise of the power conferred by section 13 above where, by virtue of subsection (4) of section 12 above, it is exercised by the Secretary of State when issuing an authorisation; and in relation to any other exercise of that power by virtue of that subsection this section shall have effect as it subsection (1)(a) required the notice to state that the Secretary of State is considering exercising the power by virtue of the said subsection (4) and as if subsections (2) and (3) were omitted '.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Clause 26

SANCTION OF COURT REQUIRED FOR TRANSFERS OF LONG TERM BUSINESS

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 46, in page 22, line 19, after 'Gazettes', insert:
'and, except where the court has otherwise directed, in two national newspapers'.
I understand that it will also be convenient to take with this amendment, Amendment No. 19, in page 22, line 19, after 'Gazettes' insert:
'and such other newspapers as the Court may direct'.
This amendment deals with the substance of Amendment 19, which would require application to the court for a direction as to the newspapers in which notice concerning a scheme to transfer long-term business is to be published in addition to the London and Edinburgh Gazettes. I thought it preferable to relieve the court of making a decision in regard to such publication in every case by requiring as standard procedure notice in two national newspapers. If the companies concerned thought that some other form of notice would be more suitable in a particular case they could apply to the court for a direction to adopt that as an alternative. I hope that this substantially meets the point raised by the hon. Member for Glasgow, Craigton (Mr. Millan), which was a useful one. I commend the amendment.

Mr. Millan: I am grateful to the Minister for tabling Amendment No. 46, which substantially meets the objectives


of Amendment No. 19 and is, of course, acceptable.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 20, in page 23, line 39, leave out 'Subsection (1) above' and insert:
'Subsection (7) above does not apply to a transfer of long term business carried on elsewhere than in Great Britain but, save as aforesaid, this section'.
Clause 26 was amended in Committee so as to extend its provisions to the long-term business carried on overseas of insurance companies to which the 1958 Act applies since such a transfer might indirectly affect the interests of United Kingdom policy holders. However, I am advised that the drafting of the Committee amendment was defective and Amendment No. 20 is intended to correct it.
The effect of the amendment is to remove the mandatory provision of subsection (7) of the clause while retaining the permissive provisions of subsection (1) to transfers of long-term business carried on elsewhere than in Great Britain. This will mean that, while not obliged to seek the sanction of the British court for the transfer of overseas long-term business, a transferor company to which the Act applies may, if it so desires, seek that sanction.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 28

MARGIN OF SOLVENCY FOR GENERAL BUSINESS

Amendment made: No. 21, in page 25, line 14, at end insert 'and an order under that subsection may make different provision in relation to different cases or circumstances'.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Clause 34

APPROVAL OF PERSON PROPOSING TO BECOME CONTROLLER OF INSURANCE COMPANY WHERE SECTION 33 DOES NOT APPLY

Mr. Millan: I beg to move Amendment No. 23, in page 30, line 30, leave out have ' and insert 'has'.
This is another effort on the part of the Opposition to improve the Bill. In

this case we seek to improve the grammar of the Bill and no doubt the amendment will be accepted by the Government.

Mr. Anthony Grant: Nothing pleases me more than grammatical improvements and, therefore, I am happy to accept the amendment.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 24, in page 31, line 1, leave out 'associated with' and insert 'a controller of'.
This is, in essence, only to a minor drafting point, based on an amendment moved in Committee by the hon. Member for Dudley (Dr. Gilbert). He proposed a provision relating to "the" controller; the amendment recognises that there may be more than one.
This amendment is to a large extent presentational rather than substantive. It gets rid of the unnecessarily pejorative expression "not a fit and proper person to be associated with the company "and substitutes the more correct reference to" a controller". This is consistent with the amendment made in Committee to Clause 2(1).

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 35

DUTY TO NOTIFY CHANGE OF DIRECTOR, CONTROLLER OR MANAGER

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 25, in page 31, line 20, leave out 'director, controller or manager' and insert 'controller'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we can discuss also Amendments Nos. 26, 27 and 34.

Mr. Grant: Clause 35 was criticised in Committee as being nonsensical so far as it required managers and directors to notify the insurance company of their appointment to those positions or of the cessation of such appointments. The clause was defended on the ground that the notification was intended to inform the company of the "other matters" to be prescribed under Clause 35(1). These other matters would be predominantly personal matters, information on which only the individuals concerned could provide.
We accept, however, that it is unnecessary to require directors and managers to notify the company of their appointment or the cessation of their appointment and the first of these amendments accordingly removes those particular requirements while the second retains the requirement that they should give the company the "prescribed matters" so that it may pass them to the Department.
The case of the controller is different. Although his intention to acquire control should have been submitted to the Department for approval, it would not necessarily be realised. The Department therefore needs notification when it has been achieved. This would not necessarily become known immediately to the company, for example if control were fragmented as envisaged in Clause 2(2) and Clause 5. But the company needs to know so that it may observe other requirements of the Bill, for example those of Clause 10. For the same reason the company needs to know when control has been relinquished. The first amendment therefore leaves the requirements unchanged in the case of controllers.
The third amendment is consequential. It restates the duty of the company to notify the Department in the various cases.
The fourth amendment rectifies an omission in identifying the circumstances in which a default in compliance may not be an offence.
The amendments stem from our discussion in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made: No. 26, in page 31, line 25, at end insert:
'; and a person who becomes a director or manager of any such insurance company shall, before the expiration of the period of seven days beginning with the day next following that on which he does so, notify the insurance company in writing of such matters as may be prescribed'.

No. 27, in page 31, line 27, leave out from 'shall' to end of line 31 and insert:
'give written notice to the Secretary of State of the fact that any person has become or ceased to be a director, controller or manager of the company and of any matter of which any such person is required to notify the company under subsection (1) above; and that notice shall be given before the expiration of the period of fourteen days beginning with the day next following that on which that fact or matter comes to the company's knowledge'—[Mr.Anthony Grant.]

Clause 43

INTERMEDIARIES IN INSURANCE TRANSACTIONS

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 29, in page 35, line 23, leave out from 'to' to end of line 24 and insert:
'give the prescribed information with respect to his connection with the company to the person to whom the invitation is issued'.
This amendment, I am happy to say, gives effect to an undertaking given to my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) in Committee, when we accepted the essence of his Amendment No. 60.
The sound point made in Committee by my hon. Friend was that, in many cases, it may be difficult to identify an act which could be regarded as an invitation to enter into an insurance contract. He further pointed out that some parties were in such frequent contact that a separate statement on each occasion might be an unnecessary burden. It seems sensible, therefore, to make the regulation making power sufficiently flexible to permit the Secretary of State to prescribe the manner and the time or times when the information about the insurer intermediary connections is to be given so that the risk both of leaving loopholes and of requiring unnecessary repetition can be avoided. The rewording of the subsection achieves this.

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for fulfilling his undertaking to move an amendment to meet the object which I sought to achieve with my own amendment in Committee. He has done that in terms of the first part of subsection (1). However, I am less happy about subsection (3).
In Committee on 5th July at column 330 of the OFFICIAL REPORT it will be seen that my hon. Friend gave me an undertaking that my suggested amendment would also apply to the second part of the clause, which was the subject of an amendment which he moved in Committee. I am not sure that my hon. Friend has fulfilled that very specific undertaking.
As I understand it the regulating power applies only to subsection (1) and not to subsection (3).Unless I misread the


clause, the regulating power does not go on to deal with subsection (3), which says that when issuing the invitation the person shall inform the person to whom it is issued that the company is not such an insurer "as aforesaid". I do not want to repeat what I said in Committee, but I explained there the difficulties of fulfilling that obligation at the moment of making the invitation—something which is done in a variety of ways—and I still do not see how it will be done in this way under subsection (3).
I am disappointed that in producing his amendment my hon. Friend has not been able to do away with the phrase "issues any such invitation", which has the connotation of handing out a document of some kind. In many cases that will not happen. There will be a verbal exchange which may contain no formal invitation in any sense. I accept the phrase as it stands only on the understanding that it covers such verbal exchanges. I do not believe that my hon. Friend has fulfilled his undertaking in Committee to see that this matter was dealt with in such a way as to affect both parts of the clause.
I draw my hon. Friend's attention to one specific point. The clause applies to insurance brokers dealing with overseas clients in circumstances where they may be placing business entirely with overseas insurers. There are many cases where London brokers acting in the London market place insurance business for overseas insurers with overseas companies. In such a case a broker has to go to his overseas client in placing business in Japan, Germany or any other country and say "Incidentally, you ought to realise that this company is not authorised under United Kingdom regulations". I suggest that this will cause difficulty to brokers, if it does not just make them look extremely silly.
It is a pity that we have finished up with subsection (3) in such an unsatisfactory form. I ask my hon. Friend whether he cannot look at it again with a view to tidying it up a little more before the Bill returns to this House from the other place.

9.45 p.m.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I am advised that my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Nicholas Edwards) is under a misapprehension on the first

point that he made. Subsection (3) refers to such invitations as in subsection (1). I think that that was my hon. Friend's misunderstanding.
The difficulties that my hon. Friend has described both here and in Committee which are placed in the way of brokers will be carefully taken into consideration in framing the regulations.
On my hon. Friend's last point, it is only right that, as a matter of basic principle, where a broker is going to place or accept an invitation for business with non-authorised overseas companies that information—

Mr. Nicholas Edwards: rose—

Mr. Grant: —should be notified to the client. I do not think there is any more to it than that.

Mr. Edwards: I want to seek an assurance from my hon. Friend. The Bill, as we discovered when dealing with it in Committee, is extremely complicated. I agree that the clause refers to

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is not a Committee stage. The hon. Gentleman is entitled to make an intervention. I think that his hon. Friend has given way to him. However, he must make an intervention, not another speech.

Mr. Edwards: I was about to say that the clause refers to "any such invitation". Will my hon. Friend give me a categorical assurance that the regulating powers apply to this part of the clause? It is by no means clear.

Mr. Grant: As a matter of drafting, that is what I am advised.

Amendment agreed to.

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 30, in page 35, line 27, after 'person', insert:
'in the course of carrying on any business or profession'.
This amendment deals with a point not raised in Committee. It makes clear that a person issuing an "invitation", where he has no commercial interest, is not to be under the obligation to inform the recipient of the invitation of the fact that the insurer concerned is not authorised here. Thus, the obligation would not apply, for example, where a potential policy holder was "invited" by a


friend from another country to follow that friend's example of insuring with an insurance company in his country, particularly as the friend could not perhaps be expected to know whether that company was an "authorised insurer" here. I think that this excludes from the provisions of the clause people whom it clearly was not intended to catch.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 47

LINKED LONG TERM POLICIES

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 31, in page 39, line 23, at end insert:
'(e) requiring insurers under the contracts to furnish to the Secretary of State, in such manner and at such times or intervals as may be prescribed, such information certified in such manner as may be prescribed with respect to so much of their business as is concerned with the contracts or with any class or description of the contracts, and enabling the Secretary of State to publish such information in such ways as he thinks appropriate'.
This amendment stems from recommendations 24 to 27 of the Scott Committee's Report. Those recommendations basically envisage that, where policies are linked to an internal fund, a set of accounts should be drawn up for that fund and should be audited.
The amendment enables the Secretary of State to make regulations requiring companies to draw up such accounts and to make a copy promptly available to the general public, probably by placing it in the appropriate file at the Companies Registration Office. These accounts are intended primarily for the benefit of policy holders in the scheme.
The amendment is substantially similar in effect to Clause 5, but it is limited to the linked long-term contracts defined in subsection (1) of Clause 47. Like Clause 5, it will permit returns to be required more frequently than annually—probably quarterly. Clause 5 relates only to insurance companies. Whilst Lloyd's syndicates do not at present offer long-term insurance, they are not debarred in principle from doing so. Clause 47 provides for the possibility that they may offer linked policies in future. Consequently, the amendment would permit quarterly returns to the Department and

annual statements to policy holders derived there from to be prescribed for Lloyd's as well as companies in this context. The amendment tidies up the provisions for implementing this aspect of the Scott Committee's Reports.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 52

OFFENCES AND PENALTIES

Amendment made: No. 47, in page 41, line 31, after 'section', insert '6, 8(5).'—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 33, in page 41, line 32, leave out '34(1), 44 or 47' and insert 'or 34(1)'.
Clause 44, dealing with the statutory notice in relation to a long-term policy and Clause 47 dealing with linked long-term polices, both impose requirements upon insurers. Clause 52, which is the penalties clause, provides that an insurer who fails to comply with those requirements shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.
Clause 52(3)(b) provides for a similar penalty if a person other than an insurer fails to comply with a requirement. Since Clauses 44 and 47 impose requirements only on insurers, there is no need for the reference to those clauses in this paragraph, and the amendment deletes that erroneous reference. I am glad to say that that is something that the Opposition did not see in Committee.

Amendment agreed to.
Amendment made: No. 34, in page 42, line 4, leave out from 'became' to 'of' in line 5 and insert:
'or ceased to be a controller'.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Clause 53

REGULATIONS AND ORDERS

Mr, Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 36, in page 42, line 31 leave out from 'instrument' to 'House' in line 32 and insert:
'and no such order shall be made unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each'.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are taking the following Amendments:
No. 35, in page 42, line 30 leave out subsection (2) and insert:
'(2) No order shall be made under sections 1 and 28 above unless a draft of the order has been approved by a resolution of each House of Parliament'.

Amendment No. 40.

Mr. Baker: In Committee this was the occasion of an interesting debate initiated by the hon. Member for Barrow-in-Furness (Mr. Booth), who brought to bear his considerable experience as Chairman of the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments.
I shall not go over the various points made in that debate, but they concerned the use of the negative and the affirmative procedures for subordinate legislation. Having regard to the important effect that orders made under the two clauses referred to could have upon the admission of new entrants to the industry, and upon the technical solvency of those already engaged in it, the Government are prepared to agree that the affirmative procedure would be appropriate, and that is achieved by the amendment which is parallelled by one put down by the Opposition. I am sure that the amendment will meet wtih the approval of the House.

Mr. Booth: On behalf of my hon. Friend and myself may I say that the Ministers action in tabling the amendment is appreciated. But for the amendment, the Bill would have provided by regulation for the Companies Acts 1958 and 1967 to be amended by the negative procedure, which would have been intolerable. As the point has been met we are happy to acknowledge the Minister's action.

Amendment agreed to.

Clause 57

SHORT TITLE, CITATION AND COMMENCEMENT

Mr. Kenneth Baker: I beg to move Amendment No. 37, in page 44, line 34, at end insert 'Amendment'.
The effect of the amendment is that the Bill when enacted will be entitled

the Insurance Companies Amendment Act 1973 rather than the Insurance Companies Act 1973. The object of the amendment is merely to reserve the latter title for the Consolidation Act that will bring together the 1958, 1967 and 1973 Acts which it is hoped might be enacted before the turn of the year.

Mr. Milan: That is very good news, because we raised this matter at the early part of our proceedings. We are delighted that there is to be a consolidation measure. We hope that when we get it we shall be able to understand it, but about that I am slightly sceptical.

Amendment agreed to.

Schedule 3

APPLICATION TO NORTHERN IRELAND

Amendment made: No. 42, in page 50, line 30, leave out from '10' to '(7)' in line 32.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Mr. Anthony Grant: I beg to move Amendment No. 38, in page 50, line 38, leave out from '12' to 'in' in line 40 and insert:
'in subsection (1)(b) and (c) the words "Part II of the Act of 1967' shall be omitted;'.
The purpose of this rather complicated looking set of words is solely to reflect the changes necessary as a result of the amendment discussed earlier, namely, to link it all appropriately to the Northern Ireland legislation.

Amendment agreed to.

Amendments made:

No. 39, in page 53, line 32, at end insert:
'34. In section 46 for "26" and "1889" there shall be substituted respectively "24" and "(Northern Ireland) 1954".'.

No. 40, in page 54, line 12, leave out from '(2)' to 'House' in line 13 and insert:
'No order shall be made under section 1 or 28 above unless a draft of it has been approved by resolution of each'.—[Mr. Anthony Grant.]

Bill read the Third time and passed, with amendments.

NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL

Lords Amendments considered.

Clause 25

PROCEDURE

Lords Amendment: No. 1, in page 17, line 31, leave out "section" and insert "subsection".

9.55 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. Peter Mills): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is aimed purely at making the reading much clearer, and the word "subsection" clarifies the point.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 36

PROVISIONS AS TO OTHER NORTHERN IRELAND OFFICERS

Lords Amendment: No. 2, in page 25, line 32, at end insert:
(5) Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision with respect to the appointment of lord-lieutenants, lieutenants and deputy lieutenants in Northern Ireland, for conferring on them functions which apart from the Order would be exercisable by lieutenants in Northern Ireland, for altering the designation of vice-lieutenants in Northern Ireland and for matters incidental to or consequential on any provision so made, including the amendment or repeal of any enactment passed before this Act.
(6) An Order in Council under subsection (5) above may be varied or revoked by a subsequent Order.

The Minister of State for Northern Ireland (Mr. David Howell): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The main effect of the amendment is to introduce the rank of lord lieutenant into Northern Ireland. The House will recall that there was some discussion of issues related to this on Report. Under the existing law, each county in Northern Ireland has a lieutenant, in exactly the same way as each county in Great Britain has. The only difference between

Northern Ireland and Great Britain is that lieutenants in Northern Ireland are appointed under existing law by the Governor, while in Great Britain they are appointed by Her Majesty.
Following local government reorganisation in Scotland and in England and Wales, the present system of appointments in Great Britain is to be changed so that, with effect from April 1974, there will be a lord lieutenant in each of the new counties in England and Wales. With effect from April 1975 there will also be a lord lieutenant for each of th. new Scottish regions and island areas. There is provision for each lord lieutenant to be supported in his area by one or more lieutenants.
The simple purpose of the amendment is to enable suitable and similar changes to be made in Northern Ireland in due course. It would in our view be wrong if provision were not made for the dignity of Her Majesty's representatives in Northern Ireland to be raised to the rank of lord lieutenant when they are being raised to that rank in Great Britain.
The proposed new subsections will enable Her Majesty to make appropriate provision for the appointment of lord lieutenants and lieutenants in Northern Ireland. It would be impossible to say at this stage what arrangements will be decided upon by Her Majesty. The representation of the Crown in Northern Ireland, as in any other part of the United Kingdom, is a matter for Her Majesty herself, and it would be improper to attempt to forecast the view which might be taken. But the amendment makes it possible for future arrangements to be organised as desired.

Mr. Merlyn Rees: It seems reasonable that we should bring the arrangements for lieutenancy into line with the new arrangements which are to come in Great Britain following local government reform, with lord lieutenancy, lieutenancy and deputy lieutenancy.
I am surprised to hear that prior to this there were no lord lieutenants in this part of the United Kingdom but only lieutenants. It seems that many people have been masquerading for a very long time. However, if that is so I must accept it.
I want to raise two matters very briefly. I do not understand why the new clause is worded:
Her Majesty may by Order in Council make provision with respect to the appointment.
Why is the word "may" used? Surely the whole purport of the Minister's argument is that this is "required". Why should it be only "may" in the future? What possibility could there be of this not having to be done, in view of the Minister's positive words? We are surprised that it is phrased thus.
I realise that I am on delicate ground, but referring to the phrase
may by Order in Council
would that Order in Council come before the House? I know that the major part of this matter would be on the Royal Prerogative and at the discretion of Her Majesty. But it is not clear what form of Order in Council is involved.
I realise that I am on difficult constitutional ground and that the appointment of lieutenants of these three types is in the hands of Her Majesty, but—
It being Ten o'clock, the debate stood adjourned.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,

That the Consideration of Lords Amendments to the Northern Ireland Constitution Bill and the Water Bill may be proceeded with at this day's Sitting, though opposed, until any hour.—[Mr. Fortescue.]

NORTHERN IRELAND CONSTITUTION BILL

Question again proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Rees: From what group will lieutenants of the three new types be chosen? What type of person are we talking about? There was a time, certainly in the nineteenth century and the early part of the twentieth century, when lord lieutenants where chosen from ex-members of Her Majesty's forces, and in particular from the Army. There was then a connection with the Territorial Army. Are we saying that this will be

a similar type of person? I am not asking for names, but will these people have to wear uniforms? Unless people have a military background, given the peculiar nature of Northern Ireland, let alone the peculiar nature of the United Kingdom, it might be difficult to find the type of people who have a uniform to wear. What work will they do?
These questions, which come straight out of the top of my head, are important to us. I shall be glad to hear the answers later. We are talking about some counties where there are large groups of people who never thought to be considered as lord lieutenants and groups of people who do not consider themselves to be part of the United Kingdom. It is important for us to know what the Government have in mind when they say that Northern Ireland is to be brought into line with the rest of the United Kingdom.

Mr. Rafton Pounder: I apologise to you, Mr. Speaker, and to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for not having heard the opening observations of my hon. Friend.
Though obviously I profoundly regret the abolition of the office of governor, nevertheless the amendment goes a considerable way towards meeting the anxieties which were widely expressed in Northern Ireland about the office of governor. I welcome the amendment and thank my hon. Friend for presenting it to the House.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Belfast, South (Mr. Pounder) and to the hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Merlyn Rees) for the way they have commented upon the amendment.
The reason "may" is there is that it is constitutionally inappropriate to require the Queen to make an Order in Council. Orders in Council are under the Royal Prerogative and are without parliamentary procedure.
I cannot follow the hon. Gentleman in his speculations on the types of person and about uniforms. The question how the representation of Her Majesty is carried out is a matter on which it would not be proper for me to comment. The amendment implies no change from the procedures adopted in the rest of the


United Kingdom. That is as far as I can go. The rest is a matter for Her Majesty and for the normal procedures by which these matters are decided by her.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 38

POWER TO LEGISLATE BY ORDER IN COUNCIL FOR CERTAIN MATTERS RELATING TO NORTHERN IRELAND.

Lords Amendment: No. 3, in page 26, line 18, leave out from "by" to end of line 22 and insert:
or under any Measure or Act of the Parliament of Northern Ireland or Order in Council under section 1(3) of the Northern Ireland (Temporary Provisions) Act 1972 or by or under any Act of the Parliament of the United Kingdom passed before this Act in so far as the provision is part of the law of Northern Ireland.
( ) An Order in Council under subsection (2) above may contain such consequential and supplemental provisions as appear to Her Majesty to be necessary or expedient.

Mr. Peter Mills: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is designed to correct a flaw in drafting. Clause 38(2) seeks to place in Her Majesty's hands a power to make Orders in Council similar to that which the Governor had by virtue of Section 2 of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1945. With the abolition of the office of Governor, the power which the Governor had to amend the law of the United Kingdom in certain circumstances will be transferred to Her Majesty.
The Government have also thought it right to require that the exercise of this power should be subject to the affirmative resolution procedure in both Houses unlike the power held by the Governor, which was subject to no parliamentary procedure. Unfortunately, in translating the power from the terms of the 1945 Act two points were overlooked, and the amendment seeks to remedy the defects.
The first part of the amendment will enable Her Majesty to make Orders in Council where it is necessary following provisions in subordinate legislation. The second part of the amendment ensures that an Order in Council made under this provision may contain such consequential provisions as may be necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 3

MINIMUM RESERVED MATTERS ON APPOINTED DAY

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 33, line 7, after "Ireland" insert:
, the Court of Criminal Appeal in Northern Ireland,".

Mr. David Howell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
It is purely a technical amendment. It had been thought that the Court of Criminal Appeal was already covered by the words "Supreme Court of Judicature", but on further analysis it appears that technically the Court of Criminal Appeal is not part of the Supreme Court; hence the amendment. In short, it remedies a technical defect.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 5, in page 33, line 9, leave out "and legal aid" and insert:
, legal aid and the registration, execution and enforcement of judgments and orders".

Mr. Peter Mills: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment is simply aimed at the use of more precise language. It makes no change in principle, but merely translates the intention already provided for in the Bill into more precise terms.

Question put and agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 6, in page 33, line 15, leave out "and 5" and insert ", 5 and 5A".

Mr. David Howell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With it, it will be convenient to discuss Lords Amendment No. 7 in page 33, line 37, at end insert "5A. Firearms and explosives."

Mr. Howell: The effect of the amendments is specifically to include firearms and explosives in the reserved matters listed in the schedule. It was thought that the definitions already there covered these items, but it was found not to be so. Therefore, this is a technical change


to give effect to what was intended in the first place.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Lords Amendment: No. 8, in page 34, line 22, leave out first "and"

Mr. Peter Mills: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The extra "and" which at present appears between "oaths" and "undertakings" makes the paragraph ambiguous. The removal of the word makes it clear that the paragraph refers first, to oaths; secondly, to undertakings in lieu of oaths; and, thirdly, to declarations.

Question put and agreed to.

Schedule 6

REPEALS

Lords Amendment: No. 9, in page 36, line 20, column 3, at end insert:
and the words" and pending proceedings".

Mr. David Howell: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this we are taking also the following Lords Amendments:

No. 10, in page 39, column 3, leave out lines 8 to 10 and insert:
The whole Act, so far as unrepealed.

No. 11, in page 39, line 27, column 3, at end insert:
In section 14(3) the words" "or in section two of the Northern Ireland (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1945".

No. 12, in page 41, line 10, column 3, at end insert:
In section 12(7) the words from "but" onwards.

No. 13, in page 41, line 40, column 3, at end insert:
In Schedule 1, in Part III, the words "Crown Solicitor in Northern Ireland", "Speaker of the Senate or House of Commons of Northern Ireland" and "Standing Counsel to the Speaker of the Senate or House of Commons of Northern Ireland".

No. 14, in page 42, column 3, leave out line 16 and insert:
subsection (3), in subsection (4) the words "giving or" and subsection (12).

No. 15, in page 47, line 11, column 3, at end insert "Section 18(3)."

No. 16, in page 49, line 47, column 3, at end insert:
In section 29(1) the definition of" the Attorney General".

Mr. Howell: These amendments simply tidy up the various items in the extensive list of repeals in the schedule.

Mr. Pounder: When we were considering these matters earlier there arose a point in connection with the repeal of a previous item of legislation which affected the Queen's University in Belfast. I understood that at one stage it was intended that the matter should be the subject of an amendment in another place, but, for technical reasons which my hon. Friend the Minister of State has made clear to me, that has not been possible.
All I wish to do now is to get on record that Queen's University, with which I have been in touch today, is perfectly happy with the situation in the Bill and hopes that the Government will expedite the new charter which it is seeking. I thank my hon. Friend for the help he gave in the matter.

Mr. David Howell: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. It is true that the Government had hoped to be able to rewrite the part of the schedule to which he refers in a way in which the matter could be incorporated in the Bill, but that has not proved possible as there is apparently no way of protecting Queen's University without running the grave risk of making the Bill hybrid, which would be extremely serious and would have delayed the Bill's passage through this House and another place.
In those circumstances we have been obliged to omit any reference to Queen's University. As my hon. Friend clearly accepts, and has established for himself, the university has nothing to fear. I am certain that the Northern Ireland Assembly would not wish to legislate against its interests. The university is seeking a new charter which will give it all the protection it needs. It must be hoped that everything will be done to expedite the achievement of that charter.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

WATER BILL

Order read for consideration of Lords Amendments.

10.11 p.m.

Mr. Denis Howell: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. My right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition last week offered the Government full facilities for the remaining stages of this Bill, as well as other Bills, today, in consideration of the Government's co-operation in providing time for the debate which the House had earlier today on other important matters. That promise will be honoured, and we shall attempt to facilitate the remaining stages of the Bill. But I must protest about the way in which the Bill has been handled and about the procedural situation with which the House is faced.
The Standing Committee sat 19 times to consider the Bill. Our deliberations lasted from 20th February until 12th April, which is nearly two months. We had then, almost as soon as the House returned from the recess which followed the end of the Committee proceedings, the Report stage. Therefore, there was little time for the House as a whole or even for the Government to consider the many matters raised on Report.
The Bill then went to another place, whence it has returned with 218 amendments. That gives some idea of the drafting and substantial matters that had to be dealt with. It is a little odd, and it is wrong, that those amendments, most of which should have been considered on Report, are being brought before the House at this late hour.
I shall not press that point any further, except to say that it is wrong. I do not blame Ministers. I think that the situation has to do with the parliamentary managers, who are doing their best to cope with the pressures on the parliamentary timetable. But a word of protest should be said on behalf of the people in the water industry, which is being reorganised in a serious and fundamental manner by the Bill, who have 218 amendments from another place considered at this hour.
Having made that protest, with your indulgence, Mr. Speaker, I shall try to

assist the Government to consider the amendments as expeditiously and constructively as possible.

10.15 p.m.

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Member is quite right to use the word "indulgence". I have been very indulgent in allowing him to go so far. Taking note of the fact that nothing of what he said raised a question of order. I might also be tempted to thank Providence that I have nothing to do with arranging the business of the House.

Lords Amendments considered.

Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 3

MEMBERS OF WATER AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 4, in page 4, line 8, leave out "three" and insert "four";

The Under-Secretary of State for the Environment (Mr. Eldon Griffiths): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment increases the maximum number of members who may be appointed to a regional water authority by the Minister of Agriculture. After discussions, it has now been agreed that in the case of the three largest authorities, the Anglian, Severn-Trent, and Thames, the Minister will appoint four members; in the case of the two middle-sized authorities, the North-West and Yorkshire, he will appoint three members; and in the case of the four smaller authorities, Northumbrian, Southern, South-West, and Wessex, he will appoint two members.

Mr. Denis Howell: We are glad that the size of the authorities is being increased, especially having regard to the geographical extent of the authorities, and we have no objection to the agricultural interests having greater representation, but I wonder whether the Minister has considered representations from other interests. Is he satisfied that the balance has been adequately maintained between the agricultural interests on the one hand and the domestic, industrial and local authority user interests on the other hand?

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I can give the hon. Member the assurance that we took that very carefully into account. He will see that the increase in the number of appointments by the Minister of Agriculture is entirely in relation to the three authorities, Anglia, Severn-Trent, and Thames, where there is a very extensive agricultural interest.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 4

ESTABLISHMENT AND FUNCTIONS OF NATIONAL WATER COUNCIL

Lords Amendment No. 9, in page 6, line 43, at end insert:
and their functions with respect to the preparation, review and provision of plans under section 23 below".

The Minister for Local Government and Development (Mr. Graham Page): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): With this we shall also consider Lords Amendment No. 72, in Clause 23, page 28, line 20, leave out from "authorities "to end of line 21 and insert:
likely to be affected by the matters mentioned below".

Mr. Page: Lords Amendment No. 9 provides an addition to the research and planning functions of the National Water Council. The National Water Council has the duty
to promote and assist the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions",
and their planning functions are contained in Clause 23. The words used in the amendment cover the general duty of the National Water Council to promote and assist the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions of planning.
Lords Amendment No. 72 takes effect in this way. Clause 23 requires a water authority, in carrying out its planning functions, to consult adjacent water authorities. The plans of a given water authority may have interrelationships not only with those of adjacent authorities but with those of authorities farther afield, and Amendment No. 72 provides for this.

Mr. Gordon Oakes: I should like to know just how far this Lords amendment goes. The right hon. Gentleman will remember that in Committee we discussed in some considerable detail the duties and functions of the National Water Council in relation to regional water authorities, with particular reference to schemes such as the Wash barrage, the Morecambe barrage, and so on. It was felt by many hon. Members that the National Water Council should—I was going to use the expression "take over", but I will not—have considerable influence on schemes which really were beyond the purview of a regional water authority.
Lords Amendment No. 9 says:
and their functions with respect to the preparation, review and provisions of plans under section 23 below.
Is it envisaged in this amendment that when a major scheme is proposed such as a barrage scheme, the regional water authorities will leave it to the National Water Authority to prepare such plans on a national basis? One of the purposes of the Bill is to ensure that throughout the whole of the country the wetter West can supply the more populated and drier East. That would seem to be a function of the National Water Authority rather than the regional authorities. Will the amendment meet the attempt which was made in Committee? I think it will. It goes a long way, but will it go as far as was wanted in Committee?

Mr. Page: The amendment goes as far as the Bill now stands with this amendment. In Clause 4(5) the words are:
It shall be the duty of the Council"—
I read on to sub-paragraph (b) which says:
to promote and assist the efficient performance by water authorities of their functions, and in particular, their functions relating to research;".
There will be added to those words by Amendment No. 9 of another place:
and their functions with respect to the preparation, review and provision of plans under section 23 below.
Section 23 covers a wide area of planning.
That does not mean that the National Water Council will take over the planning functions of the regional water authorities. It means what it says. It will promote and assist the regional water


authorities to carry out those functions. If a regional authority is called upon to develop within its area a supply or a conservation which will benefit other areas, it will seek the assistance of the National Water Council to carry out that development. That is the purpose of these clauses. The National Water Council will promote and assist the regional authorities when the operations of the regional authorities extend in importance beyond the boundaries of their authority.

Mr. Idris Owen: In the planning of water resources, shall we reach a position when the new water authorities will adequately plan for the needs of the community? From time immemorial we seem to have been in a dilemma whenever we have had a period of fine weather. During the last weeks of June we had a period of fine weather. It was not long before the water authorities were talking about the conservation of water supplies. They were talking about the rationing of water and asking that there should be no watering of gardens and no washing of cars.
I recall from my local government experience that we had only to have a few weeks of drought before the water authorities became panic stricken. I hope that my right hon. Friend will be able to assure me that an adequate water supply will be available for this country's needs after the new authorities begin to operate. After all is said and done, we are not on the Equator.
We have adequate water supplies but we have inefficient conservation of water. That has led to unreasonable restrictions being placed upon consumers whenever there has been a short spell of fine weather. It has become farcical when water authorities have had to ask for water conservation after a brief spell of summer weather. I hope that the new water authorities will adequately plan for the needs of the community.

Mr. Page: I assure my hon. Friend that that is the whole purpose of the Bill. We do not have an inadequate water supply. We merely have to plan the supply so that it is shared out fairly. It is that planning which is of such importance. Such planning is involved over wide areas which are covered by each of the regional water authorities set out in

the Bill. This is the whole purpose. My hon. Friend has put his finger on the basis of the Bill. In future, we shall be able to plan what we have in this country—an adequate water supply.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 5

DIRECTIONS TO WATER AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 11, in page 8, line 39, at end insert:
but before giving a direction to water authorities generally, the appropriate Minister or Ministers shall consult the Council about the proposed direction.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment requires the appropriate Minister or Ministers to consult the National Water Council before giving a direction to water authorities generally under Clause 5. As the council will be the collective voice of the water authorities, this requirement is clearly appropriate. The amendment implements an undertaking which I believe I gave on a similar amendment in Committee. It was merely a matter of getting the wording right.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am not sure that the Minister did give an undertaking, although many of the amendments before us are the result of the Government honouring undertakings. Perhaps I can at this point express collective appreciation for them. But I do not think that Lords Amendment No. 11 was such a case, because we raised the matter on Report. I think rather that it is a concession, which means that our gratitude is compounded, and we are grateful to the Government for it.
It is obvious that the amendment is of importance to the National Water Council and gives it a little more bite, which is what we have urged throughout. Clearly, the council should be a genuine central body. I am, however, worried about the limitation which might be involved in the word "generally". The right hon. Gentleman proposes that the council shall be consulted on any general matters


on which the Minister wishes to issue a directive. Is that a limitation?
We shall come to the question of new boundaries later on, but perhaps I may make my point now instead of then. One would think, for example, that the council might be consulted on more specific matters affecting each of the various water authorities. I said on Report that I would like the council to be able to tell the Minister if it thought that certain boundaries were wrong and needed changing, and there are many other such examples.
I content myself with questioning whether the word "generally" is not rather inhibiting, and I seek an assurance from the right hon. Gentleman that this does not merely involve matters on which he will give general directions but that the water authorities, with the council, will be consulted on more specific matters where appropriate.

Mr. Graham Page: Clause 5 deals with general directions. It begins:
The Minister may give water authorities directions of a general character …".
We contemplate that the Minister will be giving directions of a specific or detailed character to the water authorities. We wish them to be as independent as possible. Lords Amendment No. 11 is an amendment to subsection (3) of Clause 5. Subsection (3) now reads:
A direction under this section may be given either to a particular water authority or to water authorities generally.
The amendment will add the words:
but before giving a direction to water authorities generally, the appropriate Minister or Ministers shall consult the Council about the proposed direction.
We contemplate a direction which has some policy factor in it—a general direction—rather than a particular assistance to one water authority.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 6

ARRANGEMENTS FOR DISCHARGE OF FUNCTIONS OF WATER AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment: No. 12, in page 10, line 4, leave out "other than a subcommittee)".

10.30 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The Bill specifies that at least two-thirds of the members of any committee of a water authority appointed under Clause 6(6) must be members of the authority, although the remainder can be co-opted from elsewhere. The same rule is not applied at present to subcommittees. It seems desirable that it should be so applied to ensure that there is sufficient cohesion and integration in the administrative and committee structure of the water authority. It would be wrong for the water authorities to delegate their functions to a sub-committee if it consisted of a majority, or a totality, of members who were not members of the authority.
If the water authorities were to set up executive sub-committees composed substantially or predominantly of co-opted members there would be a real risk that there would be too diffuse an administrative structure, which would militate strongly against achieving the comprehensive management of water resources which is the object of the reorganisation. Since we have made the provision about committees, this amendment applies it to sub-committees.

Mr. Oakes: I question why it was in the first place that the Government included this proviso "other than a subcommittee" in the clause. My fear is that it may well be that a water authority may wish to have a sub-committee for part of its duties, for example sewerage and drainage functions. I am not talking about agency agreements. It may be that the water authority might decide that the most appropriate sub-committee to deal with the functions would be composed very largely of local authority representatives who had the experience and expertise.
By insisting that two-thirds of the members of a sub-committee shall be members of the regional water authority, are we excluding a water authority in its own right from creating a subcommittee which would be composed largely of local government people? Is this a further erosion of the power of the regional water authority?

Mr. Page: The hon. Member has put his finger on the point. It would, in my view, be wrong for a water authority to delegate its executive functions to a subcommittee which could, as the Bill stands, consist wholly of the members of a local authority. If it is intended to delegate those executive functions in that way there is provision elsewhere for the proper sort of agreement to be made, but not by way of a sub-committee which does not consist of a substantial majority of the authority.
We want to create in the authorities a governing body and not-except by the methods set down in the Bill-to delegate its functions to other bodies outside its control.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 7

RATIONALISATION OF HOLDINGS OF PROPERTY, AND OF FUNCTIONS

Lords Amendment: No. 18, in page 11, line 14, leave out from "desirability" to end of line 27 and insert
in the interests of rationalisation, of doing either or both of the following, that is to say—

(a) altering the boundaries of their area for the purposes of any functions of theirs;
(b) transferring property of theirs to some other water authority.

(2) In discharging their duty to consider the desirability of altering the boundaries of their area for the purposes of any functions, a water authority shall first consider those boundaries which are different for the purposes of different functions, and in discharging their duty to consider the desirability of transferring any property, they shall first consider any property of theirs held for the purposes of any functions which is situated outside their area as constituted for the purposes of those functions.

(3) If a water authority decide that it is desirable to do either or both of the things mentioned in subsection (1) above, they shall make a recommendation to the appropriate Minister or Ministers accordingly, and the appropriate Minister or Ministers may—

(a) if the water authority recommend the alteration of the boundaries of their area, make an order under section 2 above altering those boundaries in accordance with the recommendation; and
(b) if the water authority recommend the transfer of any property of theirs, make an order transferring that property and any rights or liabilities of theirs in connection therewith to a water authority specified in the recommendation.

(4) A statutory instrument containing an order under subsection (3)(b) above shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: It will be convenient also to discuss Amendment No. 19, in page 11, line 39, leave out "this section" and insert "subsection (4) above".

Mr. Page: The amendment does little more than redraft Clause 7. It is necessary to have some provision in the Bill for rationalisation because of the present boundaries and the different types of authority. The clause as drafted was not satisfactory. The amendment is designed to make clear the purposes of the clause, and it also limits the order-making power in the clause to the transfer of property.
Two basic steps will be necessary to achieve rationalisation: altering the boundaries between one water authority and another; and transferring property from one water authority to another.

Mr. Denis Howell: I am a little puzzled by the amendment. It deals with boundaries, but it would seem that the water authority could alter its own boundaries. Is that right? I should have thought that somebody else would be involved, and not just the authority making the alteration. That would bring in the National Water Council. Is the Minister satisfied that he has got the matter right?

Mr. Page: A water authority would not make a recommendation without fully consulting an adjoining authority. The Secretary of State would then decide the matter and the order would be made.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 9

WATER CONSERVATION

Lords Amendment: No. 22, in page 12. line 25, at end insert:
(2) The reference in this section to action for the purpose of augmenting water resources includes a reference to action for the purpose of treating salt water (whether taken from the sea or elsewhere) by any process for removing salt or other impurities).

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment provides for water authorities to include treatment of salt water in action that they take for the purpose of augmenting water resources. Such provision was contained in the Bill as drawn, but I think it right to make it clear by inserting the proposed subsection (2).

Mr. Oakes: The Opposition welcome the amendment. I am not sure whether water authorities had this power under the Water Resources Act 1963, but it does no harm to include in the Bill a specific reference to the powers of a regional water authority to spend money on research into using salt water. The hon. Member for Stockport, North (Mr. Idris Owen) said that often in times of drought we worry about our water resources, forgetting that our island is surrounded by water. In addition, we have a duty to under-developed countries, where water is even more precious than it is here, to lead in research into the use of sea water. I hope that this reference will be a constant reminder to regional water authorities to make research part of their programme.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 11

SUPPLY OF WATER BY STATUTORY WATER COMPANIES ON BEHALF OF WATER AUTHORITIES

Lords Amendment No. 33: in page 14, line 7, after "1973" insert:
or such later date as the Secretary of State may authorise in the case of that authority generally or in any particular case".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking the following Lords Amendments:
No. 34, in page 14, line 9, leave out "undertakes" and insert "undertake".
No. 35, in page 14, line 17, at end insert:
(c) the company's charges for the supply of water

No. 36, in page 14, line 28, after "or" insert:
either of the parties may,".
No. 37, in page 14, line 29, leave out "may".
No. 38, in page 14, line 33, at end insert:
( ) The Secretary of State shall not so settle or vary arrangements under this section as to oblige the company to fix their charges at a level which will endanger their ability, so long as their undertaking is managed efficiently, to provide a reasonable return on their paid-up capital, having regard to their probable future expenditure and to the need to provide for any contributions which they may lawfully carry to any reserve fund or contingency fund, to make good depreciation (in so far as provision therefor is not made by any such fund as aforesaid) and to meet all other costs, charges and expenses properly chargeable to revenue".
No. 40, in page 14, line 39, leave out subsection (7) and insert—
(7) Subject to the provisions of any order made under section 254 of the 1972 Act as applied by section 31 below, so much of the enactments relating to the undertaking of a statutory water company as imposes on the company any duty to supply water, except Part VIII of Schedule 3 to the Water Act 1945 (supply for public purposes) and any local statutory provision which is similar to any provision of that Part, shall cease to have effect.
No. 42, transpose the last two subsections of clause 11 to the end of the second of the clauses into which clause 6 is divided.
No. 44, in page 17, line 21, at end insert—
except any such reference in section 24(4) of the said Act of 1936,".
No. 45, in page 18, line 19, at beginning insert—
Subject to subsection (5A) below".
No. 46, in page 19, line 16, leave out "or main drainage authority".
No. 47, in page 19, line 18, leave out subsection (4) and insert—
(4) Subject to subsection (5A) below, a water authority shall, not later than 1st November 1973 or such later date as the Secretary of State may authorise in the case of that authority generally or in any particular case, send to every relevant authority with whom they are under a duty to endeavour to make arrangements under subsection (1) above a draft of the arrangements with the relevant authority.
(5) Subject to subsection (5A) below".
No. 48, in page 19, line 29, at end insert—
(5A) If at any time before arrangements are settled under this section a water authority and a relevant authority come to the conclusion that in the interests of efficiency it would be inexpedient to enter into any arrangements under subsection (1) above or, as the case may be, to be bound by arrangements settled by the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above—

(a) the water authority shall not take the action required by subsection (4) or (5) above; or
(b) where the water authority have already notified the Secretary of State under subsection (5) above that arrangements have not been entered into, they shall further notify him of the conclusion and he shall not settle the terms of the arrangements."


No. 49, in page 20, line 7, leave out "a" and insert "the".

Mr. Griffiths: It is necessary to say a word only about Lords Amendment No. 33. The date by which a water authority must send to a statutory water company the draft arrangements to be entered into for the performance of its functions is 1st November 1973 as the clause stands.
In Committee the Opposition said that this was perhaps a date that would be hard to meet in so far as the reorganisation is considerable. We have no reason to suppose that the date is impracticable, but we accept that it is wise to be flexible, and this the amendment allows us to be flexible.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Lords Amendment No. 41 in page 14, line 42, leave out subsection (8) and insert:
(8) For sections 12 and 13 of the Water Act 1945 (supply of water in bulk and default powers) there shall be substituted the sections set out in Part I of Schedule [Supply of water in bulk and default powers] to this Act.
(9) Sections 2(1)(b) and (4) and 4(2) to (4) of the Water Act 1948 (which also relate to the supply of water in bulk) shall cease to have effect.
(10) Part II of Schedule [Supply of water in bulk and default powers] to this Act shall have effect in relation to the making and confirmation of orders by a water authority under sections 12 and 13 of the Water Act 1945 as substituted by Part I of that Schedule.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we are taking the following Lords Amendments:
No. 43, leave out Clause 12.
No. 97, in page 39, line 18, leave out "(6) (7) and (8)" and insert:
"and (6) to (11), except subsections (9) and (11) so far as relating to section 12 of the Water Act 1945".
No. 98, in page 39, leave out line 19.
No. 123, in page 60, line 26, at end insert New Schedule A—Supply of water in bulk by agreement or compulsorily.
No. 191, in page 95, line 57, leave out from beginning to end of line 16 on page 96.

Mr. Griffiths: These amendments refer specifically to the problems of bulk water supply. The new Schedule and the other amendments set out in a much more comprehensible and satisfactory form certain essential but non-controversial provisions about the bulk supply of water to statutory water undertakings and the taking of default action by a water authority against a statutory water company where necessary.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 16

REQUISITIONING OF SEWERS FOR DOMESTIC PURPOSES

Lords Amendment: No. 50, in page 20, line 31, leave out subsections (1) and (2) and insert—

(1) It shall be the duty of a water authority to provide any public sewer to be used for domestic purposes for the drainage of premises in their area—

(a) if the owners or occupiers of the premises require the authority to provide a public sewer, otherwise than for the drainage of new buildings which they propose to erect on the premises, and the conditions mentioned in subsection (2) below are satisfied; or
(b) if the owners of the premises require the authority to provide a public sewer for the drainage of new buildings which they propose to erect on the premises and the conditions mentioned in subsection (3) below are satisfied; or
(c) if the conditions specified in subsection (4) below are satisfied.

(2) In a case to which paragraph (a) of subsection (1) above applies, the conditions which must be satisfied are—

(a) that the reckonable charges payable in respect of the premises will not be less than the qualifying amount; and
(b) that the persons making the requisition agree severally with the water authority to pay the reckonable charges in respect of the premises for three years at least from the date on which the laying of the sewer is completed.

(3) In a case to which paragraph (b) of subsection (I) applies, the conditions which must be satisfied are—

(a) that the sewer which the owners of the premises require the water authority to provide as a sewer communicating (in such manner and in such place as the authority consider appropriate) with a private sewer provided by the owners; and
(b) that the owners undertake to meet any relevant deficit.

(4) The conditions mentioned in paragraph (c) of subsection (1) above are—

(a) that the reckonable charges payable in respect of the premises will be less than the qualifying amount; and
(b) that the local authority in whose area the premises are situated undertake to meet any relevant deficit.

10.45 p.m.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
Clause 16 establishes procedures whereby a water authority may be required to provide public sewers for domestic purposes in a range of cases. It closely follows the present provisions in the Water Act 1945 for the requisitioning of domestic water supplies, to which water authorities will be subject.
When first introduced the clause provided power for local authorities and private persons to requisition sewerage facilities in the same way as they have power to requisition water supplies—subject to their willingness, where necessary, to make guarantee payments. It was stated at that time that the text needed further consideration and some tidying up. These amendments are offering to do that. The amendments are primarily drafting, but the result of the further consideration will comprise various re-arrangements and detailed alterations which I need not go into in detail.
This is an important provision which we felt right and proper to introduce at an earlier stage in the Bill. However,

it needed careful drafting, and I think we have now got it right.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 20

RECREATION

Lords Amendment: No. 65, in page 25, line 41, at end insert:

(3A) In exercising their functions under subsection (1) or (3) above a water authority shall not obstruct or otherwise interfere with navigation which is subject to the control of a harbour or navigation authority without the consent of the harbour or navigation authority.

In this subsection "harbour authority" has the same meaning as in the Harbours Act 1964 and "navigation authority" has the same meaning as in the Water Resources Act 1963.

(3B) Where the Secretary of State makes an order under section 23 of the Water Act 1945 or section 67 of the Water Resources Act 1963 authorising a water authority to carry out works for or in connection with the construction or operation of a reservoir in England or conferring compulsory powers for that purpose on a water authority, and it appears to him that the works to be carried out may permanently affect the area in which they are situated and are not primarily intended to benefit the inhabitants of that area, he may include in the order provision with respect to facilities for recreation or other leisure-time occupation for the benefit of those inhabitants.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The first half of the amendment, (3A), concerns navigation. The second half, (3B) covers a circumstance where a new regional water authority may wish to carry out works helpful to the community where it has provided a reservoir.
In the case of the new subsection (3A), the amendment fulfils the Government undertaking given in Committee that the new functions of the water authorities with regard to recreation do not give them any right to override the interests of navigation. I think that this will be welcome to hon. Gentlemen opposite as well as to my hon. Friends on the Government benches.
In the second half, the effect of subsection (3B) is to give the Secretary of State power, when making orders authorising a water authority to carry out works for the provision of a reservoir,


to include within that order provision of facilities for recreation and other leisure time employment for the people of that area, provided that he is satisfied that the reservoir or other works may permanently affect the area in which they are situated, and are not primarily for the benefit of the people of that area.

Mr. Nigel Spearing: I am sure that navigational interests will be grateful to the Government for this concession. However, it is only right for the record to point out that at this stage the only safeguard is in respect of navigation that is subject to the control of a harbour or navigation authority.
A great many of the fears—fears which are not entirely allayed due to the nature of the Bill and its compulsory provisions—are that navigation will be within the control of the regional water authorities. This concession concerns cases in which navigation is under the control of another authority.

Mr. Denis Howell: It would be churlish not to express appreciation to the Minister, especially in respect of the second part of the amendment dealing with recreation.
It is extremely important that when new reservoirs and waterways are opened up, recreational and leisure-time interests should be taken fully into account and be a responsibility of the water authorities.
I am glad to acknowledge that the Government have written the necessary provision into the Bill, and it has the support of the Opposition.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendment agreed to.

Clause 21

DUTIES WITH REGARD TO NATURE CONSERVATION AND AMENITY

Lords Amendment: No. 67, in page 26, line 44, leave out "natural beauty of the countryside" and insert
beauty of, or amenity in, any rural or urban area".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This again fulfils an undertaking given in Committee. The point at issue was

whether the phrase "natural beauty" covered urban as well as rural areas. With the help of the other place, we have now covered both rural and urban areas.

Mr. Denis Howell: I agree that the point has been adequately met. I am especially grateful to the Government for writing in the word "amenity" as well as the phrase "natural beauty". The two can be separate. Camping and picnicking areas, for example, are general amenities for the public and must be a responsibility, as well as that of preserving areas of natural beauty. I am glad that that has now been done.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 22

WATER SPACE AMENITY COMMISSION

Lords Amendment: No. 70, in page 27, line 16, leave out from beginning to end of line 21 and insert—
(1) For the purpose of exercising the functions conferred on them by this section there shall be a body to be known as the Water Space Amenity Commission consisting of".

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House both agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment seeks to clarify the duties and powers of the Water Space Amenity Commission. It is designed both to meet some of the recommendations of the Select Committee on Sport and Leisure of the other place and to fulfil a promise that we made in Committee to consider the promotional rôle of the commission further. This we have done.

Mr. Denis Howell: This is an occasion when the Opposition do not agree with what the Government have done. We shall not divide the House, for obvious reasons. But we have always been opposed to the Water Space Amenity Commission. Since we debated this matter in Committee, my inquiries from the Sports Council and other bodies have produced the advice to me that they are no more enamoured of this provision than when it was first introduced.
Responsibility for the correct usage of water space should be with the water


authorities, the local authorities and the regional sports councils, and the Government have done that in the Bill. Therefore, it seems odd that yet another body is placed between those three agencies and the public desire for greater facilities.
We are not assisted by the words which the Minister has just used. He says that he is looking after the promotional rights of the commission. I suppose there could be an argument for having the commission but, if it is to go in for promotional activities, it will cut across what the regional water authorities, the local authorities and the sports councils should be doing, and that adds to our confusion.
We do not believe that the case for the commission has been made out. But we leave it there. No doubt time will tell whether the Minister is right or whether the bodies which doubt the logic of this proposal are right.

Mr. James Scott-Hopkins: I have certain anxieties about the Water Space Amenity Commission and what it will be doing concerning new reservoirs and recreational facilities upon them.
I have a particular constituency interest, as my hon. Friend knows only too well. I am anxious about what will happen if, for instance, local authorities recommend that these recreational facilities be kept to a minimum. Will the new commission be able to overrule them and advise my right hon. Friend that those facilities should be improved? There is a great deal of disquiet in countryside and rural areas where the new reservoirs are situated about the vast amount of disruption that the provision of recreational facilities will incur. I think that very few people object to new reservoirs, but they take a different attitude about the recreational facilities which will thereby be provided.
I am not clear what the Water Space Amenity Commission will do. I have read through the earlier proceedings and noted the controversy that arose in Committee and elsewhere. I am not convinced that this is the right way of going about the matter. There is a conflict of interest. My interest is that these recreational facilities should be reduced to the minimum required, not the maximum.

Mr. Spearing: I think it is right at this stage for me to follow the hon. Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) who, although for quite different reasons, has doubts about the Water Space Amenity Commission. The reason for the insertion of this body in the Bill was the thought originally that canals would be included. It was a safeguard, at least from the Government's point of view.
As I said to the Minister in Committee, this is a Whitehall placebo. The meaning of the phrase "water space", coined not by the Under-Secretary but somewhere in Whitehall, varies from place to place. The reservoir, the gravel pit and river, whilst technically being water space, are different kinds of water space.
In Committee we put down an amendment which would have required the Government to set up a Water Recreation Advisory Committee for each regional water authority. That would have had some merit, but alas, the Chairman did not see fit to select it. Those advisory committees would have fulfilled the function which the Minister wishes the Water Space Amenity Commission to fulfil. They would have been far better than the proposal we now have, because they would have been able to deal with local matters. The national organisations, some of which are listed in subsection (3A)(a), would have knowledge of local matters. The advisory committees which I suggested would have been preferable to this body, which very few people appear to want and whose powers seem to be very much in doubt.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: With the permission of the House, perhaps I should say at once to my hon. Friend the Member for Derbyshire, West (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that the purposes of the Water Space Amenity Commission will be to have regard to the development of water recreation and amenity in the widest sense. I should include in that the bird watcher, the rambler and the other quiet pursuits of the countryside as well as those which on occasion can intrude on the quietness of rural areas. The advice of the commission will be extremely valuable because of the need to strike a balance here.
Referring to the point made by the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing), each of the regional water authorities


will have a member with specific responsibility for recreation and amenity. I have little doubt that he will set up a Section 6 committee to advise him, and in so doing he will have the assistance of the regional sports council, its excellent water resources committee and, indeed, local amenity and local authority advisers. It will be for the Water Space Amenity Commission to assist these recreation and amenity committees of the regional water authorities in every possible way.
There is no doubt that we have a massive turning towards water sports and recreation in this country. I very much welcome that because we are short of land. It is wise to use our water. I believe that the Water Space Amenity Commission, backed by the National Water Council, working in conjunction with the Sports Council and the Countryside Commission, with whose chairman I have discussed the matter, and under the effective leadership that I am sure we shall be able to find for it, will provide something that is needed and valued in this country.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 23

PERIODICAL REVIEWS, PLANS AND PROGRAMMES

11.0 p.m.

Lords Amendment: No. 72, in page 28, line 20, leave out from "authorities" to end of line 21 and insert
likely to be affected by the matters mentioned below".

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This was dealt with when we discussed Amendment No. 9. Amendments No. 73 and No. 74, also in Clause 23, are drafting amendments and Amendment No. 75, which follow, implements an undertaking given at an earlier stage of the Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

New Clause A

DISCHARGE OF RECREATION AND AMENITY FUNCTIONS IN AND AROUND GREATER LONDON

Lords Amendment: No. 76, after Clause 23, in page 30, line 33, at end insert new Clause A:

"A.—(1) The Thames Water Authority shall, after consulting the interested bodies, submit to the Secretary of State not later than 1st April 1975 proposals for the transfer to the Greater London Council of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses and land to which this section applies and, subject to subsection (3) below, the Secretary of State may by order give effect to the proposals, either as submitted to him or with modifications.

(2) The Secretary of State may himself at any time after consulting the interested bodies amend or revoke an order under subsection (1) above or, where any such order has been revoked, provide for the transfer of all or any of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses or land to which this section applies to the Greater London Council.

(3) If it appears to the Secretary of State that it is desirable to make an order under subsection (I) above giving effect to any proposals with modifications which appear to him to be substantial, he shall direct the Thames Water Authority, after consulting the interested bodies, to reconsider the proposals and submit revised proposals to him under that subsection within a time specified in the direction, but the foregoing provisions of this subsection shall not apply to an order under this subsection giving effect to the revised proposals.

(4) While any recreation and amenity functions are exercisable by the Greater London Council by virtue of an order under this section, section 22(3A) above shall have effect as if references therein to water authorities included references to the Greater London Council.

(5) In this section "the interested bodies" means—

(a) the Water Space Amenity Commission;
(b) the Greater London Council;
(c) in the case of proposals made by the Secretary of State under subsection (2) above, the Thames Water Authority and in any case any other water authority whose recreation and amenity functions will be affected by these proposals in question;
(d) the Port of London Authority;
(e) the Common Council of the City of London;
(f) the London Boroughs Association;
(g) such other bodies representing persons interested in the use of the watercourses and land to which this section applies as


the Thames Water Authority consider desirable or the Secretary of State directs in the case of proposals submitted to him and as he considers desirable in the case of his own proposals.

(6) In this section "recreation and amenity functions" means, in relation to any authority, the authority's functions under section 20 above and, so far as relating to those functions, their functions under sections 21 and 23 above, not being in any case functions with respect to navigation conferred by or under any enactment.

(7) The watercourses to which this section applies are—

(a) so much of the River Thames as lies within Greater London;
(b) every watercourse, other than the River Thames, which is for the time being a main metropolitan watercourse within the meaning of Schedule 14 to the London Government Act 1963;
(c) so much of the River Beam, the River Ingrebourne and the River Roding as lies within Greater London; and
(d) so much of any other watercourse situated wholly or partly within, or adjoining the boundary of, Greater London as lies within the flow and reflow of the tides of the River Thames;
and the land to which this section applies is any land associated with any watercourse to which this section applies.

(8) Without prejudice to any power exercisable by virtue of section 31 below, an order under this section may contain such transitional, incidental, supplementary or consequential provision as the Secretary of State considers necessary or expedient for the purposes of the order.

(9) A statutory instrument containing an order under this section shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament."

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
This is an important amendment. It fulfils an undertaking during Committee stage. Its effect is to require a water authority, in carrying out its duties under Clause 23, to have regard to local plans, and it deals specifically with the Thames Water Authority. The commitment which I gave in Committee arose from the discussion we had and followed representations from the Greater London Council in respect of the Thames.
Essentially, what is to happen under the amendment is that the new Thames Water Authority will be required to enter discussions with the Greater London Council, with the London boroughs and with the Port of London Authority with a view to making a scheme for sensible

development of recreation and amenity in respect of the River Thames where it passes through the Greater London area.
Following consultations which these various bodies are having and will continue to have, they will put forward this scheme to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State, who, after appropriate consultations, will be able to confirm it by order under the Bill.

Mr. Spearing: I know that the hour is late, but, as the Under-Secretary has said, this is an important amendment, and while the hour is late and there are not many hon. Members here, particularly at this stage, because of various public events, and the feeling that the ability of the House to deal with some of these matters should be put to the test, on this issue there is some justification for speaking. I hope that the House will bear with me a little because it is so, and this has to be put on record.
This arose out of the difficult position of the Government in Committee in March last when they made what appeared to be a concession. A clause was to have appeared on Report, but it was not ready then and was introduced in the House of Lords.
The understanding of the hon. Member for Northants, South (Mr. Arthur Jones) is rather different from the form we have. He said in Committee:
My interpretation is that the GLC will have executive powers."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, Standing Committee D, 1st March 1973, c. 182.]
Looking at the terms of the undertaking, it is clear that the undertaking was rather wider in inference than is the power in the clause. The Government managed to survive in Committee because of the so-called concession, which, as I have pointed out, did not amount to much anyway.
The clause seems very long for what is necessary. It illustrates the difficulty of the dodge that the Government got up to, but there are aspects of it that ought to be discussed because in future when there is a water boom in London, as I am sure there will be, the clause will be looked at closely and it may be the cause of some local controversy. In Britain's capital city, whose major natural feature is the Thames, the clause will be of vital importance.
Whilst the Thames Water Authority shall submit to the Secretary of State a proposal not later than 1st April 1975, it is not a duty on the Secretary of State to make such an order. The clause says that he may do so. It may be a drafting point, but "may" rather than "shall" weakens the force of the new clause because, as the statute may be after receiving the Royal Assent, the Minister need not necessarily do anything. I know that that appears to be a technicality but it is unfortunate, in view of the concession, that that situation could arise.
Subsection (2) of the new clause provides for the
transfer of all or any of the recreation and amenity functions of water authorities as respects the whole or part of the watercourses or land to which this section applies to the Greater London Council.
I understand that there has been some correspondence between certain noble Lords and noble Ladies on this matter, and the clarification that was required was in respect of the Thames above Teddington where it is non-tidal and where the present recreation and navigation authority will be transferred to the Thames Water Authority.
It was suggested in one of these letters—I do not think that I am allowed to quote completely—that the reason for the insertion of "all or any" was that there was a different situation above and below Teddington Lock. Of course there is in respect of the flow of the tide, and it is true that navigation above Teddington is, alas, concerned almost solely with recreation.
The letter from a noble Lady tends to justify this "all or any", but the navigation function of the new Thames Water Authority will be largely a question of licensing craft and the control of navigation in respect of regattas, and so on. As I understand it, if the GLC does not have responsibility under the order that is made it will be denied the recreational function of the Thames Water Authority, which in my submission is not exactly the same as the navigational one. If the GLC is denied those recreational powers it may be—I do not know whether this is a fact but it could be—debarred from having financial powers in respect of recreation.
The Minister knows that some of the controversy in Committee was over the

financial powers of regional water authorities in respect of recreation. If the river above Teddington does not become the responsibility of the GLC, from the recreation point of view it will not have the financial power that is concerned particularly with landings, boathouses and land immediately adjacent to the river. I hope that when the Minister looks at the application from the Thames Water Authority he will ensure that the difficulty which the Government appear to see in this situation is covered. This is a technical point, but it is a matter of some relevance to those who use the river.
My second point on the clause is one of rather more procedural substance, but it is important. When we came to the Report stage and there was no clause to fulfil the undertaking given in Committee, it so happened that in expectation of there being a clause of this sort I tabled another new clause that would have set up a statutory body, or enabled the GLC to set up a statutory Thames River Advisory Committee, that would have enabled it to have a statutory body to advise it on the functions that it is to have under the new clause. In my haste to save the time of the House it may be that I did not make it clear to the Under-Secretary then that my new clause proposing an advisory council, on which users would be represented and which would have statutory powers to advise the GLC, was in no way a substitute for the clause that the Government were expecting to table. It was additional to that.
I tried to make the case for the new clause, as reported in HANSARD for 1st May at columns 1032–34, but in replying the Under-Secretary made no mention of the new clause except to say that it had the support of some hon. Members. When I asked whether, in expectation of a new clause in another place, the Under-Secretary accepted it as an auxiliary clause, he made no reply. He said that it had been left in the air and that what happened with the new clause was a matter for me.
I am approaching the end of what 1 realise is a rather longer intervention than is customary in these debates. However, in terms of ordinary politeness, that was not a polite thing. It was a slight on the powers of an ordinary Member


of the House. It is not easy for a backbench Member to get a new clause selected for debate on the Floor of the House at the Report stage of a major Bill such as this. That is what I managed to achieve. Although quite lengthy, that clause would have enabled the GLC to set up an advisory committee to help it discharge the powers proposed in the amendment.
The Under-Secretary may have said that the GLC did not want it. But it is not entirely a matter for the GLC. It is a matter for the House to say whether or not the GLC shall have this power.
In an age when participation and open government are all the rage, particularly from the Government's point of view, there is no reason why that new clause could not have been accepted. The Under-Secretary gave no reasons. He almost refused to discuss that clause. At the time, my hon. Friends thought that the Under-Secretary was accepting the spirit of that clause. They did not distinguish sufficiently between the clause to be moved in another place, now before us, and my additional clause, which would have been a valuable auxiliary to it.
This was badly needed. However, because of that action a valuable new piece of machinery for London, which would have achieved the very thing that the Under-Secretary wanted to do—the effective development of water space in the complex area of the tidal Thames—has been made impossible. In this respect, the reputation of the House in its concern about the beauty and the enhancement of the River Thames in London has suffered.

Mr. Denis Howell: I wish to make some brief comments to supplement what has been said by my hon. Friend the Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing). My hon. Friend will recall that the cause of our concern in Committee was the fundamentally undemocratic nature and lack of accountability of most water authorities compared with, for example, the Greater London Council. It was very much our case that the GLC was plainly a regional organisation and authority in its own right, directly elected by the people, and that it should, therefore, have

control over the River Thames and all recreation and amenities on the river.
I said then that it was unthinkable that the GLC should be divorced from control over the river in any water reorganisation plan. That point of view was not acceptable to the Government. After a great deal of concern had been expressed on both sides of the Committee, the Government came forward with the proposal that is now before us.
We do not like it. I suppose that from the Government's viewpoint it makes the best of a bad job. If we are not to have direct accountability in the GLC, this could be said to be the next best thing.
The Opposition believe that the GLC case was made. If there is any further reorganisation, we shall have to give our attention to this matter.
11.15 p.m.
It is surprising that Ministers have left regional sports councils out of the organisations which the Thames Water Authority will have to consult under the clause. Under subsection (5) (g) there is an obligation to consult
such other bodies representing persons interested in the use of watercourses and land to which this section applies as the Thames Water Authority consider desirable".
That is unsatisfactory.
We hope that on matters of sport and recreation the Thames Water Authority will regard it as desirable to consult the regional sports organisations. There are two affecting the Thames; namely, the London and South-East Regional Sports Council and the Southern Regional Sports Council. They should have been written in as of right.
At this late stage I would be satisfied if the Minister would undertake that those bodies will be consulted or that he will express a wish to the Thames Water Authority that it be consulted on any question which arises which may affect regional sports policy or planning.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I readily give the assurance that it would be reasonable in all the circumstances that the sports councils should be consulted. In so far as the Water Space Amenity Commission is required to be consulted, that of itself guarantees that the sports council interests will be considered. because the amenity


commission will contain representation from the sports councils.
We have gone further than the hon. Member for Acton (Mr. Spearing) originally suggested. We are not putting up some advisory body for London. We are transferring the executive functions in respect of recreation and amenity on the London river to the Greater London Council, and that fulfils completely the undertaking I gave.
As the amendment stands and as I hope the House will accept it, it leaves open the question whether the power should be extended above Teddington Lock. We are not excluding that. This is a matter which will require a good deal of consideration. Before any order is made it will be thought about very carefully.

Mr. Spearing: I fear that I did not speak for sufficiently long. The Under-Secretary has either misunderstood or I have not made it clear. The new clause which I moved on Report was entirely auxiliary to the clause we are considering now. It was in no way an alternative. Of course this clause goes further than mine, but mine was auxiliary to this. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will take the point, because I think he understands it. The alternative is not pleasant.

Question put and agreed to.

New Clause B

SUPERANNUATION OF EMPLOYEES OF STATUTORY WATER UNDERTAKERS

Lords Amendment: No. 77, after Clause 24, in page 31, line 9, at end insert new Clause B:—

B.—(1) Statutory water undertakers may establish and administer pension schemes and pension funds in the interests of persons who are or have been employed by them, and may pay pensions, allowances and gratuities to or in respect of such persons or enter into and carry into effect agreements or arrangements with any other person for securing or preserving pension rights for any such persons.

(2) It shall he the duty of all statutory water companies, by participating in a scheme for or in respect of persons who are or have been employed by any such company, to secure benefits in respect of their service after their entry into the scheme not less in amount than the corresponding benefits for employees and former employees of water authorities in the standard water authority scheme and on terms (including terms as to the transferability of benefits) not less favourable to the persons entitled to the benefits than the terms of that

scheme; and in this section "standard water company scheme" means a scheme under this subsection and "standard water authority scheme" means a scheme designated by an order under subsection (3) below.

(3) The Secretary of State may by order—

(a) designate any scheme made for or in respect of employees and former employees of water authorities (including in particular a scheme contained in regulations under section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972) as the standard water authority scheme;
(b) designate a corporation to manage the standard water company scheme; and
(c) prescribe a date before which any person who is in the employment of a statutory water company on 31st March 1974 and intends to remain in the employment of such a company after that date, and for whom on that date superannuation arrangements will be in operation, may opt that the standard water company scheme shall not apply to him.

(4) A person who has exercised the option conferred by subsection (3)(c) above may revoke it at any time after 31st March 1974.

(5) Every employee of a statutory water company who is eligible for membership of the standard water company scheme shall be a member of that scheme unless he has exercised the option conferred by subsection (3)(c) above and has not revoked it.

(6) Any question whether the terms of the standard water company scheme are less favourable than the terms of the standard water authority scheme shall be determined by the Secretary of State.

(7) The powers conferred on statutory water undertakers by this section are without prejudice to any of their other powers.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Speaker: With this amendment we can discuss Lords Amendment No. 116, in page 51, line 4, leave out paragraph 13.

Mr. Page: The clause deals with the complicated but vital subject of superannuation. It gives water authorities and statutory water undertakers a comprehensive duty to make arrangements for the superannuation of their employees. This is in substitution for the present paragraph 13 in Schedule 3 to the Bill which Amendment No. 116 will in consequence delete. The clause also makes provision for the establishment of a water company superannuation scheme with terms which are not less favourable than those of the water authority scheme.
We entered into deep consultations with all those concerned before introducing the


new clause. After this full and careful consideration it has been decided that the local government superannuation scheme shall apply to the employees of the water authorities and to those of the National Water Council. The scheme will be governed by the regulations in Section 7 of the Superannuation Act 1972 and my Department is circulating the regulations for comment. They will be made as soon as possible so as to come into operation by 1st April 1974.
This will ensure that the superannuation arrangements are fully operative on that date and that the water industry has the freedom of investment management associated with the relatively large fund which will then be in existence. We have had advice from the body representing the municipal treasurers and accountants, from the Institute of Water Engineers and from the British Waterworks Association. They made the point that mobility of staff throughout the industry would be greatly facilitated if appropriate superannuation arrangements could be made for the staff of the companies. NALGO made the same point. It expressed its concern at the lack of full transfer pension rights between the water companies and the water authorities as things stand.
My Department approached the Water Companies Association on the subject and the association agreed to commission consultants. After further consideration it has been decided to set up a central superannuation fund for the employees of water companies, and the association has agreed that this should incorporate terms which are not less favourable than those applying to employees of water authorities, thus permitting full transferability of superannuation rights and full mobility of staff between water companies and water authorities.
As water authority employees will be within the local government superannuation scheme, this will mean that the terms applying to company employees will be not less favourable than those of the local government scheme. We shall therefore achieve mobility between authorities and the companies and full protection for employees under the terms of the local government superannuation scheme. Subsection (2) places a duty on all statutory water companies to parti-

cipate in a scheme of the kind I have described which is referred to—and I think that the phrase will become familiar in due course—as the "standard water company scheme."
The new clause then goes on to make provisions about how that scheme will come into operation and will operate. It is an important clause. It was essential that we should settle these points about superannuation for the staff, and by means of consultation with all those concerned I think that we have made the right provision.

Question put and agreed to.

Clause 27

WATER CHARGES

Lords Amendment: No. 78, in page 32, line 22, leave out "and (5)" and insert "to (5A)".

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Graham Page.]

Mr. Speaker: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following Lords Amendments;
No. 79, in page 32, line 25, leave out from "appropriate" to end of line 28.
No. 80, in page 32, line 38, at end insert—
(5A) The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council, give all or any of the water authorities directions as to the criteria to be applied or the system to be adopted by them under subsection (3) above and in giving a direction under this subsection the Secretary of State shall have regard to the provisions of subsections (4) and (5) above.
No. 81, in Clause 28, page 33,-line 26, leave out from "may" to end of line 28 and insert:
give directions to all water authorities or any particular water authority as to the services, facilities or rights for which provision is to be made in a charges scheme".
No. 82, in clause 29, page 34, line 3, after "therefrom" insert:
whether or not the charges are payable by reference to any other factors)".
No. 83, in page 34, line 23, leave out "and ascertaining therefrom" and insert:
, together with any ancillary fittings and associated works, and ascertaining from any such meter".


No. 84, in page 34, line 25, leave out from "discharged" to end of line 27.
No. 85, in Clause 30, page 36, line 2, leave out paragraph (f) and insert—
(f) all statutory water undertakers existing immediately before the passing of this Act, except statutory water companies, joint water boards, joint water committees and existing local authorities and other bodies exercising functions not affected by this Act.
No. 86, in page 36, line 7, at end insert:
and joint committees of sewerage authorities existing immediately before the passing of this Act
No. 87, in page 36, line 9, leave out from "Act" to end of line 11 and insert:
(continuation of existing joint boards and committees) shall not apply to bodies which cease to exist by virtue of this section".

Mr. Oakes: Lords Amendment No. 80 includes in subsection (3) a new provision, or a restatement of an existing provision. It deals with the vital subject of charges and the financing of charges. The Bill represents a shift of responsibility from the elected local authority representatives to the regional water authorities, nearly half of which are to be appointed by the Secretary of State. The Committee decided that the chairmen of the regional water authorities should be elected by the authorities, not appointed by the Secretary of State. But that provision was removed on Report, and greater governmental control of the regional water authorities was provided, in that the chairmen are to be appointed by the Secretary of State.
The Government are not content with taking democratic control for local authorities and having the chairmen and many of the members appointed by the Secretary of State. Lords Amendment No. 80 spells out clearly and precisely, far more than subsection (3) does, that
The Secretary of State may, after consultation with the Council, give all or any of the water authorities directions as to the criteria to be applied or the system to be adopted by them under subsection (3)",
which relates to charges.
We had a long debate on Report about water meters. Do the clause and Lords Amendment No. 80 mean that the Government are not even content with the regional water authorities exercising their own minds, and are prepared to give directions to them, not just to one but to all, as to the Government's policy

that the regional water authorities must follow on the vital matter of charging, which is central to the whole Bill and is the most sensitive area for the public?
I appreciate that subsection (3) contains provision for direction, but Lords Amendment No. 80 seems much more nakedly to spell out to the regional water authorities that unless they toe the Government's line the Government will issue a direction on the vital matter of charging, not necessarily to one but to all authorities. I concede that the Government gave regional water authorities a majority of local authority representatives. Is the amendment a safeguard provision by the Government, that unless the regional water authorities toe the line they will be subject to a direction from the Secretary of State as to how they charge for their water?

Mr. Graham Page: It is certainly not a question of depriving anyone of democratic rights. When a water authority of the kind detailed in the Bill has been set up, that authority, managing the water resources, must have a discretion to fix the charges. What we hope to achieve by the Clause and the amendment is a partnership in considering the criteria for those charges between the regional water authorities, the National Water Council and the Secretary of State, who must have the ultimate responsibility in these financial matters in deciding on a national water policy.
We cannot take Lords Amendment No. 80 alone. It goes with Lords Amendments Nos. 78 and 79. Subsection (3) already gives the water authorities a permissive power to fix their charges
by reference to such criteria
and to adopt any system for the calculation of their amount which seems to them to be appropriate. The power is subject to any directions the Secretary of State may give after consultation with the National Water Council.
It is envisaged that any directions of that sort will merely confirm the result of discussions between the Government, the water authorities and the National Water Council. Discussions with the water authorities will normally take place not direct between the Secretary of State and the authorities, but through the council. It is to the council that the Secretary of State will look for advice.
11.30 p.m.
As originally drafted, subsection (3) seemed to give the authorities a wide discretion in deciding whether to comply with these directions. Any directions of the Secretary of State on charging policy should in my view be mandatory, and the amendments achieve this. It should be noted, however, that the Secretary of State can proceed to make directions under subsection (5A) of the Clause only after consultation with the council and is subject in making directions to the same obligations as the water authorities under subsections (4) and (5) of Clause 27. That is, regard must be had to the cost of providing services in fixing the charges for them, and no undue discrimination against or preference for any class of person should be shown in fixing charges after 1st April 1981. These conditions must be observed by the Secretary of State in giving directions, just as they must be observed by the water authorities.
In the end, it must be the Secretary of State who is responsible, and responsible to this House, for the methods of financing national water policy. We would seek to have consultations and a partnership in these decisions among the Secretary of State, the National Water Council and the regional water authorities.

Mr. Denis Howell: That was a most unsatisfactory statement by the Minister. Throughout these debates the Opposition have been expressing their grave concern about the whittling away of local government democratic standards and the accountability of locally elected representatives. At the beginning of these proceedings, when the local authority associations expressed their concern and we expressed it on their behalf, we got a small concession from the Minister, under which local authority representatives had a majority of one on many of the regional water authorities. We did not like that very much.
At another stage in these proceedings, to which this matter is relevant, we were very concerned about the prospect of a revolutionary change in the charging arrangements for water users—the installation of water meters. In a long debate on Report, we made it clear that the

Opposition were totally opposed to any system by which the domestic user had to pay for water according to the amount he used. This could be a disincentive in terms of health and to usage by large families, it will bear very heavily on the sort of people whom we should be encouraging to use water and who are least able to afford it.
The Government relied on the argument that it was a permissive power which some water authorities might like to use. I remember the eloquent passage in the speech of the Under-Secretary, when he gave a graphic description of the habits of working class people on Sundays—washing their two cars, filling their swimming pools and using their washing machines and spin dryers. But at least this proposal was only a prospect for the future.
Now, the Minister says "The Secretary of State must have mandatory powers." This is, then, no longer a permissive authority for some wretched water authority to go over to a system of water meters or to any other system which many of us might feel disposed to oppose: we are now told that it is essential for the Government to have mandatory powers to order water authorities to base their charges on any criteria that the Secretary of State might like to lay down.
That is about the last nail in the coffin of local government democracy and the autonomy of local authorities, and certainly the autonomy of the water authorities. I am sorry that the Government have taken this last step backwards at this last minute of the Bill. We look at it with grave forebodings, and it is my duty on behalf of the Opposition to express our great concern and to say that we certainly shall not tolerate any system of charging by water meter when we have the opportunity to deal with the matter and to return to a more civilised local government arrangement.

Mr. Page: The hon. Gentleman does exaggerate tremendously, even at this late hour. The amendment merely tidies up what was already in the Bill. I was being frank as to what was in the Bill. I was making it clear and not trying to hide anything. Of course the Secretary of State must have power by direction to lay down criteria, if he sees fit, by which charges shall be made.
We are dividing subsection (3) into two parts. The first part leaves what is there already?—
Subject to subsections (4) and (5) below, a water authority may fix their charges by reference to such criteria, and may adopt such system for the calculation of their amount, as appears to them to be appropriate".
We are inserting a full stop at that point. In future, the water authorities may fix their charges by reference to criteria they may decide in the first instance.
Then we take out the latter part of the present subsection (3) and put it more clearly in the new subsection (5A). but not so as to deprive democracy of any of its rights. It is clear from what the Secretary of State has to consider under the new subsection (5A) that there is no massive change from the Bill as it stood. There is simply better drafting and a clearer indication that initially it is for the water authorities to decide the criteria. Only if there is some major change in policy will the Secretary of State step in to lay down these criteria.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Clause 31

CONSEQUENTIAL, TRANSITIONAL AND SUPPLEMENTARY PROVISION

Lords Amendment: No. 88, in page 36, line 30, at end insert—
(3) An order under section 2(5) above altering the boundaries of a water authority area and an order under section (Discharge of recreation and amenity functions in and around Greater London) of this Act may include the like provision in relation to the order as may be made by regulations of general application under section 67 of the 1972 Act by virtue of subsection (2) of the latter section.

Mr. Graham Page: I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.

Mr. Deputy Speaker: With this we shall take Lords Amendment No. 113, in Schedule 2, page 46, line 51, at end insert-
16A. A Statutory instrument containing an order altering the boundaries of a water authority area which is not subject to special parliamentary procedure shall be subject to annulment in pursuance of a resolution of either House of Parliament.

Mr. Page: This amendment provides that certain orders under the Bill may include the like provisions in relation to the orders that may be made by regulations of general application under Section 67 of the Local Government Act 1972. The orders we are dealing with here come under Clause 2(5) of the Bill altering the boundaries of a water authority's area and those made under the new clause providing for the Greater London Council to exercise recreational and amenity functions in and around greater London. The effect is to put such orders on the same footing as orders made under Part IV of the Local Government Act, the orders which alter the areas of local authorities.
It means that they may include provision with respect to the transfer, management and custody of property and the transfer of rights and liabilities, the functions or areas of jurisdiction in any public body, the transfer of local proceedings, and they may go so far as to extend, exclude, amend, repeal or revoke with or without savings, any provision of an Act or instrument made under an Act or charter.
This seems rather sweeping but it is a common form of provision, and an order may include such provision only to the extent that it is incidental or supplementary to or consequential upon the main purpose.
Lords Amendment No. 113 is on much the same lines. It provides for an order altering the boundaries of a water authority area to be subject to the negative resolution procedure in this House, if it is not already subject to special parliamentary procedure. We have provided that normally an order altering boundaries will have the special parliamentary procedure. It will go through the local inquiry stage, and then special parliamentary procedure follows in this House.
Normally there would be opportunity in either House of Parliament for an annulment of an order of that kind and an examination by a Joint Select Committee of both Houses in a manner similar to the Private Bill procedure. There can be occasions when, because objections are not sustained, an order of this kind may not be subject to parliamentary procedures. It may escape that altogether unless there is a sustained objection against the order. In that case, if it is one of those where the special parliamentary


procedure does not bite, this amendment will provide for a parliamentary procedure; namely, the negative procedure.

Question put and agreed to.

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Sir Robert Grant-Ferris): It has come to my notice that there is a possibility that the House may not wish to raise any further points on the remaining amendments. If this is so it would help the House materially.

Mr. Denis Howell: I do not want to stop any other hon. Member from taking part, but I see the hon. Member for Norfolk, South (Mr. John E. B. Hill) in his place. As far as the Opposition are concerned we have now raised the matters which specifically concerned us and we would be happy to co-operate with the Government and take the remainder of the amendments formally.

Mr. John E. B. Hill: would like to say a word on Schedule 4.

Mr. Eldon Griffiths: I suggest that we deal formally with all the Lords Amendments between the position we have now reached and Schedule 4.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

Schedule 4

LAND DRAINAGE

Lords Amendment: No. 124, in page 61, line 10, leave out "sub-paragraphs (8) and (9) below" and insert:
the following provisions of this paragraph.
Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.—[Mr. Eldon Griffiths.]

Mr. John E. B. Hill: I want to welcome the general tenor of the amendments to this Schedule because they are a great improvement on the Bill as drafted. There will now be greater flexibility. Although the size of the regional and local land drainage committees will remain within the ultimate control of the Minister, there is provision for these to be greater than either 17 or 15 members. This concession is extremely important because in some of these large regional water authorities, such as the new Anglia

authority, we may find as a result of experience that rather more members are needed.
Similarly, in a local land drainage area, not only the sheer size of the area but the complexity of the drainage system, concerning such things as pumping levels and elements of sea and tidal defence, could be involved. These matters should be represented to get an efficient administration within which adjustments can be made.
11.45 p.m.
It is important that Lords Amendment No. 138 allows to be elected to these committees people other than members of the appointing local authorities. This means that people whose main interest in public service is perhaps related purely to land drainage will not feel excluded. It will be possible to bring them in, and, therefore, many land drainage fears will be removed. I thank the Minister for the amendments.

Question put and agreed to.

Subsequent Lords Amendments agreed to.

ADJOURNMENT

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Murton.]

MRS. PHYLLIS COXON (WIDOW'S PENSION)

11.46 p.m.

Mr. Ivor Stanbrook: I wish to draw the attention of the House to an injustice arising out of the interpretation put on the superannuation Acts by the Ministry of Defence. It has resulted in my constituent, Mrs. Phyllis Coxon, being deprived of the widow's pension to which she, her late husband and everyone else thought she was entitled. These cases arise from the remarriage of civil servants when past the age of 60. Therefore, the number of cases in which these circumstances arise may well be very small. The principle, however, is very important.
The facts of Mrs. Coxon's case are these. Her husband, Frederick Coxon, was born on 7th December 1898. He volunteered in the First World War in


1914—he was, therefore, under age—and he enlisted in the Civil Service Rifles. He served throughout the Great War, and on demobilisation in 1919 he entered the Civil Service in an established post, initially in the Customs and Excise. In time he became an higher executive officer. He worked in the Civil Service without a break until his voluntary retirement in March 1972. Therefore, his total service was more than 53 years continuously, or rather 58 years' service to the nation if one includes his war service.
In 1958, being 60 years of age, he nominated his then wife Winifred as the person eligible to receive the widow's pension for which he had paid continuously. As with all others of his age, he found that his service then ceased to be pensionable, he having reached the age of 60.
He was transferred immediately to the non-established staff and continued to serve in the Civil Service in the same post without a break for another 14 years until his retirement in 1972. Soon after he reached 60—what to him was a purely administrative change in 1958—his wife died. That was within 12 months of his becoming 60. Mr. Frederick Coxon married Mrs. Phyllis Coxon in the following year, 1959. Neither he nor she realised that the widow's pension for which he had contributed over the years had been forfeited. Their marriage, which was happy, lasted for 14 years and terminated only with Mr. Coxon's death in a tragic road accident earlier this year. For more than 12 of those years Mr. Coxon had continued to work regularly as a conscientious and highly respected servant of the Crown. Only then, on his tragic death, did Mrs. Phyllis Coxon—now 61 and in poor health—become aware that she was not entitled to the widow's pension in respect of her husband's pensionable service.
When I raised this matter with my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Defence, he told me that the rules governing the award of Civil Service pensions had been correctly applied, but I wonder whether this is so in view of the harsh effect of a widow whose marriage was contracted after the date of the formal ending of her husband's pensionable service. Any widow who married before that date—even on the day before—is

apparently eligible for the full widow's pension. If, on the other hand, the wedding is on the day after that date, according to the interpretation adopted by the Ministry she gets nothing, no matter how long the pensionable or unpensionable service and no matter for how long the marriage lasts.
My right hon. Friend when writing to me about this case on 14th June this year said:
If a man marries or remarries after he has formally retired and therefore has ceased to be an established Civil servant, then his wife will not be eligible for pension. Even if the man was re-employed at the time of the marriage as in Mr. Coxon's case, I am afraid his wife still does not come within the rules.
I realise that there will be only a few cases like that of my constituent who married Mr. Coxon after his sixtieth birthday, but the principle is very important. If the Minister of State is right, the rules do not provide for pensions for widows of civil servants where the marriage was contracted after the husband had reached the age of 60, no matter how long his earlier service or how long his subsequent service and no matter what is the size of the fund that has been created by his own contributions throughout his service. As I said, Mr. Coxon served well over 50 years in the Civil Service.
I hope that my hon. Friend will be able to say that this interpretation of the rules is wrong, or at least that the glaring injustice which has been revealed by this case will be remedied in future.

11.53 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Civil Service Department (Mr. Kenneth Baker): I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Orpington (Mr. Stan-brook) for the way he has put his case He has spoken up well for one of his constituents who seems to have fared very badly in the application of the rules for Civil Service and public service pensions.
The facts in the case are not, I think, in dispute. Mr. Coxon formally retired from his department on reaching the normal retirement age of 60 as long ago as December 1957. He was immediately re-employed as a disestablished officer in a lower grade and served on for another 14 years until he finally retired at his own request on 31st December 1971 at the age of 74. His was a remarkable


record of service in a number of Government Departments, spanning as it did more than half a century, and I should like to take this opportunity to express my sincere sympathy to Mrs. Coxon for the tragic loss she suffered when Mr. Coxon died in a motor accident this year.
When, in 1949, a scheme for the provision of pensions to the widows of civil servants was introduced, Mr. Coxon opted to join it. He paid contributions, during the rest of his service and by deduction from the lump sum awarded to him on the occasion of his formal retirement in 1957, to provide a pension for his wife, should she survive him. But that scheme, the terms of which were enacted in the Superannuation Act 1949, provided only for the wife to whom a civil servant was married at the time of his retirement. The Act specifically provided that any marriage which took place after a man had ceased to be an established civil servant should not be taken into account in deciding whether a pension should be awarded in the event of his remarrying. The cost of the scheme was, of course, assessed on this basis.
In this particular case, as my hon. Friend has said, Mr. Coxon was married at the time of his retirement in 1957. His wife at that time, Mrs. Winifred Coxon, would have been entitled to a widow's pension. But, sadly, very shortly after he retired Mr. Coxon's first wife died. I am afraid that the law in superannuation at that time, governing the scheme to which Mr. Coxon had contributed, meant that it was impossible for the widow's pension rights to be handed on when Mr. Coxon married his second wife, Phyllis. Irrespective of whether or not Mr. Coxon returned to work after his retirement, his second wife could not inherit the pension rights of his first wife.
However, Mr. Coxon continued to serve in the Government service after 1957. But he did so in a temporary or unestablished capacity and not as an established civil servant. Under the pension arrangements as they then existed, he was able at the end of 1957 to take the lump sum payment that was due to him. While he was working thereafter, he drew so much of his pension as would, together with his pay, give him the same income as he was getting when he was

doing the higher grade job before his formal retirement. Moreover, his extra years of service enabled him to earn extra pension and lump sum benefits. When Mr. Coxon finally retired on 31st December 1971 his pension and lump sum benefits were reassessed on the basis of the higher rate of pay he was receiving in 1957 and the five years' service between age 60 and 65. Additional service of five years is the maximum allowed to reckon for pension under the pension scheme. He also received unestablished service gratuity equal to 13 weeks' pay in respect of the remainder of his 14 years of disestablished post-retirement service.
As I have explained, under the 1949 widows' scheme an employer's responsibilities for the dependants of members of a pension scheme extended only to those acquired during the employment covered by the scheme. No provision was made for marriages taking place after a civil servant had retired. That is still the position.
At one stage it was clearly intended that this particular restriction would not apply where the marriage took place during a period of re-employment. Thal is Mr. Coxon's position. But the Staff Side and Parliament subsequently accepted that, as with people who had actually retired, re-engaged pensioners should not be eligible to participate in the widows' scheme for the benefit of a wife married during re-engagement. We do not now accept that this was necessarily the right thing to do.
In the new Principal Civil Service Pension Scheme, which was introduced last year under the authority of the Superannuation Act 1972 after a long and full review with the Staff Side, we have managed to remove that particular disqualification to widows' benefits. We abolished the distinction which had hitherto existed for pension purposes between established and unestablished service, and now all service in the Civil Service, unless it is purely casual or is expressly determined to be non-pensionable because it is a short-term appointment, is pensionable. This means that, for widows' pension purposes, all marriages contracted during employment in the Civil Service, whether that employment was in an established, an


unestablished, or a re-employed capacity, will be covered.
The House will recall that an even more significant move to extend the scope of widows' pension cover in occupational pension schemes was taken by this House when the Social Security Bill was further considered on 9th May. That Bill now provides that, as a condition of recognition for exemption from the State Reserve Scheme, occupational pension schemes will have to provide pension cover for the widows of all men who leave an employer's service with an entitlement to pension, regardless of whether the marriage was contracted during that service or afterwards. This is more generally called the post retirement marriage provision.
As I say, the House has decided that occupational pension schemes which qualify for recognition under the new social security scheme as from 1975 will have to meet that condition.

Mr. Stanbrook: Will this apply to Civil Service pensions in future, therefore?

Mr. Baker: My hon. Friend anticipates my next point.
This new improvement in widows' pension cover is something for the future. Both we, in relation to the Civil Service, and the managers of all other occupational pension schemes will need to consider with the staff what changes should be made to those schemes to meet the requirements of the Social Security Bill.
It is very rarely practicable, however, to apply a change in pension arrangements to those who have already retired, and I would expect that, as in the case of the improvements introduced into the Civil Service Scheme last year, the changes can apply only to people retiring after they have been made.
Much as I sympathise with Mrs. Coxon over the death of her husband, I am afraid that I have no powers now—

nor am I likely to have in the future—to provide her with a widow's pension under the terms of the Civil Service Pension Scheme. I do not wish to sound harsh or in any way unfeeling about this, but these pension, schemes have been based on insurance principles and they can only pay benefits in respect of the insured risks.
The fact that the wife of a re-employed pensioner would not be covered under the 1949 scheme if the marriage took place during the period of re-employment was well publicised by the staff associations in 1949, and Mr. Coxon ought to have been reminded of this provision by the fact that the contributions he had been paying during his earlier service were not demanded of him when he had resumed work and had married again. I do not think, therefore, that he can have been misled into believing that the present Mrs. Coxon would be covered.
I fear, therefore, that I have to give a disappointing reply to my hon. Friend and to Mrs. Coxon. The law governing the scheme to which Mr. Coxon contributed until his formal retirement did not provide cover for a marriage which took place after retirement. The cover enjoyed by Mr. Coxon's first wife could not be passed on to his second wife. Mr. Coxon's employment from 1957 to 1971 was "disestablished" and he did not contribute to the widows' scheme to provide cover during that period. The House has, I am afraid, denied me any power to award a pension in these circumstances. I am sorry that this is the effect of the law in Mrs. Coxon's case, but, given the circumstances, I think my hon. Friend will appreciate that she has not been treated in any way different under the law from other people in similar circumstances.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at three minutes past Twelve o'clock.